Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Steve H on March 23, 2020, 10:50:44 AM
-
Firstly, may I ask that this thread remains polite and sarcasm-free - probably a vain hope, but there's no harm in asking.
I googled to find some articles on the subject from Christians. I found plenty, but most were twee, patronising and excessively wordy. This one, (https://www.jesuit.org.uk/blog/why-does-god-allow-such-suffering) though, is reasonably intelligent.
My two-penn'orth: maybe God can't end suffering. The idea of omnipotence, as developed in Christian theology, comes mainly from Greek philosophy - it doesn't have much support from the bible, which portrays God as the most powerful agent, but not necessarily all-powerful. In any case, even omnipotence has its limits. it doesn't include the ability to perform logical contradictions, and even an omnipotent God, having given humans free-will, can't also prevent them using that free-will.
Talking of which, maybe the whole of creation, not just us, has something akin to free-will: it may be that by creasting a physical universe separate from God's self, God is unable to have complete control over it, because it is separate from God.
OK, shoot me down in flames.
-
Firstly, may I ask that this thread remains polite and sarcasm-free - probably a vain hope, but there's no harm in asking.
I googled to find some articles on the subject from Christians. I found plenty, but most were twee, patronising and excessively wordy. This one, (https://www.jesuit.org.uk/blog/why-does-god-allow-such-suffering) though, is reasonably intelligent.
My two-penn'orth: maybe God can't rend suffering. The idea of omnipotence, as developed in Christian theology, comes mainly from Greek philosophy - it doesn't have much support from the bible, which portrays God as the most powerful agent, but not necessarily all-powerful. In any case, even omnipotence has its limits. it doesn't include the ability to perform logical contradictions, and even an omnipotent God, having given humans free-will, can't also prevent them using that free-will.
Talking of which, maybe the whole of creation, not just us, has something akin to free-will: it may be that by creasting a physical universe separate from God's self, God is unable to have complete control over it, because it is separate from God.
OK, shoot me down in flames.
rat-a-tat-at-tat-tat BOOM 💥
-
Firstly, may I ask that this thread remains polite and sarcasm-free - probably a vain hope, but there's no harm in asking.
I googled to find some articles on the subject from Christians. I found plenty, but most were twee, patronising and excessively wordy. This one, (https://www.jesuit.org.uk/blog/why-does-god-allow-such-suffering) though, is reasonably intelligent.
My two-penn'orth: maybe God can't end suffering. The idea of omnipotence, as developed in Christian theology, comes mainly from Greek philosophy - it doesn't have much support from the bible, which portrays God as the most powerful agent, but not necessarily all-powerful. In any case, even omnipotence has its limits. it doesn't include the ability to perform logical contradictions, and even an omnipotent God, having given humans free-will, can't also prevent them using that free-will.
Talking of which, maybe the whole of creation, not just us, has something akin to free-will: it may be that by creasting a physical universe separate from God's self, God is unable to have complete control over it, because it is separate from God.
OK, shoot me down in flames.
So fast forward this, your position is you can't have free will without evil?
Does this apply to heaven?
-
I don't find it necessary that the creator of the Universe needs to be omnipotent or omniscient in it. When I was a Christian, it was my assumption that God did not have complete control. It's pretty obvious when you look at the World that that must be the case if God exists and is omnibenevolent.
The problem I have is with Christians claiming that God has all the omnis. It's just not logically coherent. I'm fine with you claiming God exists, as long as you don't force me to pretend to believe in him too, but I am not find with you claiming logically incoherent properties for your god.
-
The 'Problem of Evil' is a compelling argument though, since if Christian theology argues that divine intent is that there needs to be a degree of suffering so as to allow 'good' to happen then surely the scale of suffering allowed should be proportionate to the capacity for 'good' - and yet there is an abundance of suffering going on, and not just involving humans.
Stephen Law's summary of the Problem of Evil on Philosophy Bites covers this.
https://philosophybites.com/2007/06/stephen_law_on_.html
-
I don't find it necessary that the creator of the Universe needs to be omnipotent or omniscient in it. When I was a Christian, it was my assumption that God did not have complete control. It's pretty obvious when you look at the World that that must be the case if God exists and is omnibenevolent.
The problem I have is with Christians claiming that God has all the omnis. It's just not logically coherent. I'm fine with you claiming God exists, as long as you don't force me to pretend to believe in him too, but I am not find with you claiming logically incoherent properties for your god.
I agree absdolutely.
-
My two-penn'orth: maybe God can't end suffering. The idea of omnipotence, as developed in Christian theology, comes mainly from Greek philosophy - it doesn't have much support from the bible, which portrays God as the most powerful agent, but not necessarily all-powerful. In any case, even omnipotence has its limits. it doesn't include the ability to perform logical contradictions, and even an omnipotent God, having given humans free-will, can't also prevent them using that free-will.
Except that, as has been covered in some depth elsewhere on the boards, the idea of free will is both not supported well by any evidence and is itself logically self-contradictory - something can be free, or it can be will, but it doesn't seem as though there's any way for it to be both.
Talking of which, maybe the whole of creation, not just us, has something akin to free-will: it may be that by creasting a physical universe separate from God's self, God is unable to have complete control over it, because it is separate from God.
That 'limited' sort of God, a fallible one, as it were, seems more viable given the evidence of the world around us, but raises a new question; if the deity is not perfect, does not have all the answers, then why should we obey/adhere? Suddenly the obvious gaps in the morality depicted in the scriptures become as likely to be an artefact of the deity as of the interpretation, and you have something powerful but which still needs to justify itself, and at that point is it any more worthy of worship than, say, the Pope, or the Queen?
O.
-
God never promised us that there would be no suffering - not even for those who trust Him; What He DID promise is that He will be with us every step of the way. You've sung the psalm.... "Even though I walk through the valley of deepest darkness, I will not be afraid, for You are with me...."
-
God never promised us that there would be no suffering - not even for those who trust Him; What He DID promise is that He will be with us every step of the way. You've sung the psalm.... "Even though I walk through the valley of deepest darkness, I will not be afraid, for You are with me...."
Very comforting, NOT! >:(
-
Very comforting, NOT! >:(
Why would anyone believe that God said anything directly instead of realising that it was a human idea, I wonder.
-
Why would anyone believe that God said anything directly instead of realising that it was a human idea, I wonder.
Goodness knows! ::)
-
God never promised us that there would be no suffering - not even for those who trust Him; What He DID promise is that He will be with us every step of the way. You've sung the psalm.... "Even though I walk through the valley of deepest darkness, I will not be afraid, for You are with me...."
If I were to take on board HGT's idea that there is a God who is not omnipotent then instead of this promise about being with us every step of the way, perhaps He should have said something such as this.
"Sorry about this suffering thing, but I really have no control over it, even though I created everything. I must admit to making a bit of a ball's up over it. However, I promise I will be with those who suffer as much as I can, and just hope that they can forgive Me "
On the other hand, if He were omnipotent, then He comes across as a very unpleasant and distasteful entity. Either way, I, personally, would see no point in worshipping Him at all. For me, that would tend towards pure hypocrisy.
I actually lay no blame at all at God's door because I have no belief He exists. Hence to blame Him would be illogical and foolish.
-
What’s odd I think about the casuistry some try to explain away evil in a world under the fiefdom of an omnibenevolent god is that it all “works” the other way around too – ie, as a rationale for an evil god. Thus for the rationale for a benevolent god of, “ah, but without bad things we’d have no appreciation of how good the good things are – therefore bad things”, one might equally say to rationalise an evil god, “ah, but without good things we’d have no appreciation of how bad the bad things are – therefore good things”.
It all makes sense with no god at all of course as some good things happening and some bad things happening is just what you’d expect that way.
Ah well.
-
Rewatching The West Wing and just watched this, one of the great scenes in what I think is the greatest TV episode ever.
https://youtu.be/DprfUzLAjuc
-
If I were to take on board HGT's idea that there is a God who is not omnipotent then instead of this promise about being with us every step of the way, perhaps He should have said something such as this.
"Sorry about this suffering thing, but I really have no control over it, even though I created everything. I must admit to making a bit of a ball's up over it. However, I promise I will be with those who suffer as much as I can, and just hope that they can forgive Me "
On the other hand, if He were omnipotent, then He comes across as a very unpleasant and distasteful entity. Either way, I, personally, would see no point in worshipping Him at all. For me, that would tend towards pure hypocrisy.
I actually lay no blame at all at God's door because I have no belief He exists. Hence to blame Him would be illogical and foolish.
The God I serve revealed His omnipotant love in perfect weakness on a wooden ceoss for me.
Do I understand the theology of suffering completely?
No.
But I don't really need to either.
-
The God I serve revealed His omnipotant love in perfect weakness on a wooden ceoss for me.
Do I understand the theology of suffering completely?
No.
But I don't really need to either.
I think we will simply have to agree on your last sentence, Anks, but undoubtedly for very different reasons.
Far more important for me is how we react to and attempt to alleviate as much suffering as possible and, in attempting to do this, to try to understand and appreciate that so many difficult decisions have to be made.
-
The God I serve revealed His omnipotant love in perfect weakness on a wooden ceoss for me.
Do I understand the theology of suffering completely?
No.
But I don't really need to either.
have you any idea how pathetic you sound
You should be ashamed of yourself
Ffs
-
The God I serve revealed His omnipotant love in perfect weakness on a wooden ceoss for me.
What is omnipotent love? What is perfect weakness? If you analyse the meaning of that sentence, it seems there isn't any in it.
Do I understand the theology of suffering completely?
No.
But I don't really need to either.
I think it's important that you do. You have a god who subjects you to suffering and yet expects you to love him. I would want to understand why.
-
have you any idea how pathetic you sound
You should be ashamed of yourself
Ffs
Why?
Why is my faith 'pathetic'?
-
Why?
Why is my faith 'pathetic'?
I wouldn't call it pathetic, but it does sound somewhat anti-intellectual.
-
I wouldn't call it pathetic, but it does sound somewhat anti-intellectual.
Surrendering to Christ does not mean abandoning reason or intellect.
One can have a satisfying, full relationship with Christ and still question, probe and explore the dimensions of that relationship.
-
What’s odd I think about the casuistry some try to explain away evil in a world under the fiefdom of an omnibenevolent god is that it all “works” the other way around too – ie, as a rationale for an evil god. Thus for the rationale for a benevolent god of, “ah, but without bad things we’d have no appreciation of how good the good things are – therefore bad things”, one might equally say to rationalise an evil god, “ah, but without good things we’d have no appreciation of how bad the bad things are – therefore good things”.
Can benevolence be reasoned out or reasoned at. I'm not so sure it can be.
''Without bad things we'd have no appreciation of how good the good things are...''
Is that really the central tenet of theodicy? It sounds like advice you'd give to an offspring just jilted in a romance to me.
I think it is a testing time for all beliefs and we all probably have an investment in all for some of these. I refer of course to.
Progress and enlightenment. How far is that working out Is all of society showing the evidence of the fruits of these at the moment. On the other hand we have the hope that things will not be as bad or worse than in similar past times, that we understand better.
Humanism. We have the hope that people and governments will do the right thing and that obligations to each other will be met.
Christianity. Has never said anything that suggested there was not good or bad in the world it has never held a rosy picture on suffering. As a new Christian in my early twenties much of the literature on hand in my first church for new christians was aimed at teenagers but from it I remember the words ''God hasn't made bullet proof Christians.'' Christians will carry on praying for all and being the same boat as everybody else.
Espousing the view that a GodLess universe explains the balance of Good and Bad
must have surely been tested as that ''balance'' has shifted somewhat.
I'd like to commend the thoughts of Jacob Astley before going into battle at Edgehill a point at which all intellectual formulations about the consequences for those involved had given out and could no more provide consolation or sustainance
Lord though knowest how busy I will be. If I forget you do not forget me.
-
Can benevolence be reasoned out or reasoned at. I'm not so sure it can be.
I think it can, it produces a society that we're all better off in - the more benevolent societies are typically those that are self-reportedly the happiest, so it's a long-term investment in our own benefit.
''Without bad things we'd have no appreciation of how good the good things are...'' Is that really the central tenet of theodicy? It sounds like advice you'd give to an offspring just jilted in a romance to me.
Is there a 'central tenet' to anything in religion? It does seem as though it shifts with time and circumstance to suit the culture in which it's manifesting (much, to be fair, as other ideologies and philosophies do).
I think it is a testing time for all beliefs and we all probably have an investment in all for some of these. I refer of course to.
Progress and enlightenment. How far is that working out Is all of society showing the evidence of the fruits of these at the moment. On the other hand we have the hope that things will not be as bad or worse than in similar past times, that we understand better.
That's manifestly working out for society as a whole - the absolute poorest are in a significantly better position in life than they were even a century ago, across vast swathes of the world. We aren't finished yet, by any stretch, but life is better for the majority of people than it has been in earlier generations.
Humanism. We have the hope that people and governments will do the right thing and that obligations to each other will be met.
Haven't we always hoped that? The difference, I feel, is that as time goes on we're getting better and better at including the diversity and range of all that are 'human' rather than judging based on a narrow subset.
Christianity. Has never said anything that suggested there was not good or bad in the world it has never held a rosy picture on suffering.
That rather depends on the individual Christian - certainly if you look, for instance, at the work of Mother Theresa there was a great deal of preaching on the nobility of suffering.
As a new Christian in my early twenties much of the literature on hand in my first church for new christians was aimed at teenagers but from it I remember the words ''God hasn't made bullet proof Christians.'' Christians will carry on praying for all and being the same boat as everybody else.
Except in those places where they're trying to create a special status for themselves (i.e. USA) or those places where other religious or ideological groups are trying to suppress or subjugate them.
Espousing the view that a GodLess universe explains the balance of Good and Bad must have surely been tested as that ''balance'' has shifted somewhat.
Not really - with no external guiding principal any 'balance' is accidental until and unless we choose to impose some measure of balance on it. If it's shifted one way or the other it's because we've either made deliberate efforts to make it happen or we've taken our eye off the ball and not watched it closely enough as nature took its course.
O.
-
I think it can, it produces a society that we're all better off in - the more benevolent societies are typically those that are self-reportedly the happiest, so it's a long-term investment in our own benefit.
Is there a 'central tenet' to anything in religion? It does seem as though it shifts with time and circumstance to suit the culture in which it's manifesting (much, to be fair, as other ideologies and philosophies do).
That's manifestly working out for society as a whole - the absolute poorest are in a significantly better position in life than they were even a century ago, across vast swathes of the world. We aren't finished yet, by any stretch, but life is better for the majority of people than it has been in earlier generations.
Haven't we always hoped that? The difference, I feel, is that as time goes on we're getting better and better at including the diversity and range of all that are 'human' rather than judging based on a narrow subset.
That rather depends on the individual Christian - certainly if you look, for instance, at the work of Mother Theresa there was a great deal of preaching on the nobility of suffering.
O.
Yes I think most have invested in progress and enlightenment and taken it for granted and now we are I think down to having faith that its beliefs and goals will hold true. Same with humanism. Most people have been humane and it has come together. Now, we are to have faith that something lasting and endurable has come out of the humanist project and that it won't slide back or collapse because conditions militate against it.
In terms of Mother Theresa either this old lady had her wires crossed...or you do.
I find that someone who can weep at the site of British people living in cardboard boxes in the middle of London is not someone who is as pro suffering as you seem to be suggesting. I find no revelling or her going 'lucky noble bastards here'.They weren't there in the fifties, sixties and seventies. That they were there in the eighties is not a reason to put your faith in progress.
I suspect campaigning atheist mythos at work here.
-
Anchs,
Surrendering to Christ does not mean abandoning reason or intellect.
Yes it does. “Surrendering to Christ” is a belief, so like any other requires sound reasons to justify it. You may have them but prefer to keep them secret but, to that extent at least, you have "abandoned reason".
One can have a satisfying, full relationship with Christ and still question, probe and explore the dimensions of that relationship.
One can believe that they have that, but actually to have that you need sound reasoning to justify the belief – both to yourself and to others. Absent that, the claim is epistemically identical to my claim about my relationship with leprechauns. To your credit you don’t presume to proselytise for your beliefs, but there’s still a hole where the reasoning should be if you want to justify it.
-
Yes I think most have invested in progress and enlightenment and taken it for granted and now we are I think down to having faith that its beliefs and goals will hold true.
Faith and belief, I fear, won't hold the standard - we need to be vigilant and keep working at it. Recent political developments - the drive for strong-man authoritarian leaders, a rise in nationalism as some of the formerly poorer countries catch up - need to be spoken out against if we are to maintain what we've gained.
In terms of Mother Theresa either this old lady had her wires crossed...or you do. I find that someone who can weep at the site of British people living in cardboard boxes in the middle of London is not someone who is as pro suffering as you seem to be suggesting.
And yet, despite the money her celebrity brought in, the mission(s) that she ran in Calcutta were poorly supplied, did not adequately train the caregivers, failed to segregate the terminal from those who could be saved... I don't doubt that, in her way, she cared but it has to stand alongside her works and words, which include the following:
The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering ... (it is) the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ
.
O.
-
Why?
Why is my faith 'pathetic'?
not your faith , you.
sounds like the wistful longings of an unrequited love affair
-
Today, I concluded my walk by coming back through a church graveyard. On many of the grave stones was written 'He fell asleep on ........ aged .....'. Now that's enough to put you off Christianity, being buried after falling asleep.
-
Today, I concluded my walk by coming back through a church graveyard. On many of the grave stones was written 'He fell asleep on ........ aged .....'. Now that's enough to put you off Christianity, being buried after falling asleep.
Why?
'Fallen asleep' was a euphamism first used in the New TYestament.
If it was OK then, why not now?
Death, for me, is falling asleep in my bedroom, waking up in my Father's house.
-
Faith and belief, I fear, won't hold the standard - we need to be vigilant and keep working at it. Recent political developments - the drive for strong-man authoritarian leaders, a rise in nationalism as some of the formerly poorer countries catch up - need to be spoken out against if we are to maintain what we've gained.
And yet, despite the money her celebrity brought in, the mission(s) that she ran in Calcutta were poorly supplied, did not adequately train the caregivers, failed to segregate the terminal from those who could be saved... I don't doubt that, in her way, she cared but it has to stand alongside her works and words, which include the following:
.
O.
Whether you like it or not belief in Progress and enlightenment and humanism is just that particularly in the face of when it becomes regress in a massive way or we pretend that inhumanity doesn't find other guises. I don't exclude myself from making the investment and then trusted that it would just get better but I've seen many pointers where that is not the case. If it's not a belief why did Pinker feel the need to rally the faithful and why did atheists feel the need to buy the rallying call.
As for Mother Theresa if you look at my post I did make allowance for her getting her wires crossed. Maybe she lost it at the end but she made the effort. She did gout there while frankly a lot of us didn't presumably because we were relying on Progress and enlightenment.
-
Why?
'Fallen asleep' was a euphamism first used in the New TYestament.
If it was OK then, why not now?
Death, for me, is falling asleep in my bedroom, waking up in my Father's house.
anchs
you seem pretty sure of things, how old will you be when you wake up ?
-
Vlad,
If it's not a belief why did Pinker feel the need to rally the faithful and why did atheists feel the need to buy the rallying call.
He didn't and they/we didn't. Correcting a perceptual bias isn't "rallying" anything, it's just correcting a perceptual bias.
-
Why?
Why is my faith 'pathetic'?
I've read many of your post Anchorman and you mostly come over to me as one of the sharper tools in the forum's general tool bag, I wouldn't say pathetic more sad to hear and and their's a couple of Douglas Addams quotes come to mind but I would prefer sad mainly because there's no evidence around that supports any of the magical, mystical or superstition based parts of this bible of yours, it's a big round zero, you must be aware of this, you're not stupid, so why?
ippy.
-
Why?
'Fallen asleep' was a euphamism first used in the New TYestament.
If it was OK then, why not now?
I don't like euphemisms for death at all. Why can't we just say "he died"?
Death, for me, is falling asleep in my bedroom, waking up in my Father's house.
There's no waking up from death. That's the point.
-
I don't like euphemisms for death at all. Why can't we just say "he died"? There's no waking up from death. That's the point.
'Sleepers' was part of what seems to have been the earliest recorded hymn, the first line of which is quoted in Scripture, hebce its' use "Wake up, o sleeper, and rise from the dead And Christ will shine on you!" (Eph 5:13)
-
'Sleepers' was part of what seems to have been the earliest recorded hymn, the first line of which is quoted in Scripture, hebce its' use "Wake up, o sleeper, and rise from the dead And Christ will shine on you!" (Eph 5:13)
anchs
well bugger me and there's me thinking we're all fucked !
-
'Sleepers' was part of what seems to have been the earliest recorded hymn, the first line of which is quoted in Scripture, hebce its' use "Wake up, o sleeper, and rise from the dead And Christ will shine on you!" (Eph 5:13)
anchs
tell you what mate , in the current situation , I wont bother god as long as you don't bother the NHS
-
AND GOD IS WEEPING WITH US
the sly nasty slimy serpent cunt
or the ABofC is fearing for his job (power) No, the second line applies to him too.
-
Oh dear, I just knew I should have put a ;) after my post.
-
Why not title this thread 'Elves, Fairies and Suffering'?
When I think of the time all of these people spend moaning, groaning and wailing around whilst inside so many over elaborate old buildings, plus plenty of other time wasted discussing a subject that rather obviously to most people here in the UK and come to that most of northern Europe as well, where these these myths are mainly viewed as man made and as such really not worth spending so much serious time discussing, couldn't all of that time be better spent doing something far more useful, anything that's useful will do?
The old buildings subsidised by the only show in town at the time that had any disposable income are a credit to the craftsmen that built them and very little else.
ippy
-
Oh dear, I just knew I should have put a ;) after my post.
Don't worry, Ekim. I got it and thought that it was quite neat. :)
-
Whether you like it or not belief in Progress and enlightenment and humanism is just that particularly in the face of when it becomes regress in a massive way or we pretend that inhumanity doesn't find other guises.
You keep lumping humanism - a philosophy - with Enlightenment - an historic period, characterised by the rise in scientific and empirical thinking, at least in the Eurocentric world - and progress - a subjective measure. Only one of those has any meaning when you describe a 'belief' or 'faith' in it. The enlightenment happened, we have the documentary evidence, it does not require 'belief'. Progress is entirely dependent upon how you measure it, but the typical measures of increased life expectancy, reduced infant mortality, reduced absolute poverty, improved healthcare, improved education, greater social mobility, greater personal independence all show a general trend towards 'progress' - it's not continual, it's not evenly distributed, it's not perfect, but it's there.
I don't exclude myself from making the investment and then trusted that it would just get better but I've seen many pointers where that is not the case.
If you've stopped trying to make it happen why are you surprised that it's not happening?
If it's not a belief why did Pinker feel the need to rally the faithful and why did atheists feel the need to buy the rallying call.
He didn't. They didn't.
As for Mother Theresa if you look at my post I did make allowance for her getting her wires crossed. Maybe she lost it at the end but she made the effort. She did gout there while frankly a lot of us didn't presumably because we were relying on Progress and enlightenment.
She made some effort, yes, I don't know enough about her personal take on things to say whether she was knowingly involved in the way the missions were used as a cash-cow for the Catholic Church or if she saw it as a necessary cost of doing the work she could do; the effect, however, was to rake in cash for the Catholic Church ostensibly for the care of those she was ministering to, but very little of which went their way. Her response to that, and not just near the end, was espouse the virtue of suffering.
O.
-
Firstly, may I ask that this thread remains polite and sarcasm-free - probably a vain hope, but there's no harm in asking.
I googled to find some articles on the subject from Christians. I found plenty, but most were twee, patronising and excessively wordy. This one, (https://www.jesuit.org.uk/blog/why-does-god-allow-such-suffering) though, is reasonably intelligent.
My two-penn'orth: maybe God can't end suffering. The idea of omnipotence, as developed in Christian theology, comes mainly from Greek philosophy - it doesn't have much support from the bible, which portrays God as the most powerful agent, but not necessarily all-powerful. In any case, even omnipotence has its limits. it doesn't include the ability to perform logical contradictions, and even an omnipotent God, having given humans free-will, can't also prevent them using that free-will.
Talking of which, maybe the whole of creation, not just us, has something akin to free-will: it may be that by creasting a physical universe separate from God's self, God is unable to have complete control over it, because it is separate from God.
OK, shoot me down in flames.
No need for shooting down in flames your article and idea never got off the ground. It is a well known fact that the bible tells us God is omnipresent and omniscient? Nothing impossible for God hence her knows the end from the beginning and has told us so. The difference is that God has power to change what he will. But man can make his decisions but the final outcome will be Gods. This time is for the number of Gentiles to be added and when the end comes all will be justice and man will have had his day but eternity like life is only something God can grant. Sometimes we all need to check the bible and recheck. Understanding the bible comes from studying it and realising who God really is in the great scheme of things.
-
Very comforting, NOT! >:(
Why do you suppose it should be comforting for you? You do not know God and you do not believe so what comfort can you gain?
-
Why would anyone believe that God said anything directly instead of realising that it was a human idea, I wonder.
And tomorrow if you should awake with your sight would that be the power of God or just co-incidence?
Jesus gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf and speech to the dumb. He raised the dead and healed the sick.
Could you do that if human without Gods power. All the miracles God was given the glory for. Anyone can have a miracle if they believe.
-
DEATH IS SLEEPS TWIN BROTHER!
The saying is used among's believers because the fact is that in death there is not knowledge of time passing as in life when you sleep at night.
Believers have only fallen asleep because their eternal life is assured.
When you die and though in your grave for many years here, you open your eyes to God and judgement immediately because you being dead or asleep know nothing of the time passing.
So we all arrive together except for some of the saints who will be judges and we all give an account. Christ said: King James Bible
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Sometimes man sees and believes only what he wants to see. Understanding comes from God.
-
It is a well known fact that the bible tells us God is omnipresent and omniscient?
Sorry, is this a statement or a question? To my understanding, there are passages that can be interpreted to support these ideas, especially in the Kings James translation, but it's far from clear that was the intent in the original languages.
Nothing impossible for God hence her knows the end from the beginning and has told us so. The difference is that God has power to change what he will.
This implies that all of reality is already spelt out, time is immutable, and in choosing this particular act of creation God has made all the decisions and we are merely automatons fulfilling the destiny God selected for us; therefore, any 'sins' are God's fault not ours, so why should we undergo any sort of punishment (or even lack of rewards) for doing what we had no choice but to do?
But man can make his decisions but the final outcome will be Gods.
Well, no - if God can see all of time and already know what's going to happen, man can't change that. If man could, God would not be able to see it.
This time is for the number of Gentiles to be added and when the end comes all will be justice and man will have had his day but eternity like life is only something God can grant.
What does a god outside of time know about justice? Justice is predicated on time, it's an impact after an event to somehow adjust a moral balance for an earlier action; that requires a concept of time, which a being outside of time would not have.
Sometimes we all need to check the bible and recheck.
Why do we need to refer to ancient myths when we have perfectly servicable modern works of greater nuance, subtlety and understanding?
Understanding the bible comes from studying it and realising who God really is in the great scheme of things.
And yet with all these people studying it for so long we still have hundreds of equally invalid interpretations, and at least three contested sequels...
O.
-
And tomorrow if you should awake with your sight would that be the power of God or just co-incidence?
That would be the after-effects of millions of years of evolution.
Jesus gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf and speech to the dumb. He raised the dead and healed the sick.
Jesus was alleged to have done this, according to the poetic translations of selected works of unreliable, vested interests, at varying periods after the alleged events.
Could you do that if human without Gods power.
Actually, yes, human medicine has done all of these (depending on your interpretation of 'dead'...)
All the miracles God was given the glory for. Anyone can have a miracle if they believe.
Anything can be a miracle, if you choose to believe rather than understand...
O.
-
DEATH IS SLEEPS TWIN BROTHER!
The saying is used among's believers because the fact is that in death there is not knowledge of time passing as in life when you sleep at night.
Believers have only fallen asleep because their eternal life is assured.
When you die and though in your grave for many years here, you open your eyes to God and judgement immediately because you being dead or asleep know nothing of the time passing.
So we all arrive together except for some of the saints who will be judges and we all give an account. Christ said: King James Bible
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Sometimes man sees and believes only what he wants to see. Understanding comes from God.
For which there is no evidence of its existence. ::)
-
What’s odd I think about the casuistry some try to explain away evil in a world under the fiefdom of an omnibenevolent god is that it all “works” the other way around too – ie, as a rationale for an evil god. Thus for the rationale for a benevolent god of, “ah, but without bad things we’d have no appreciation of how good the good things are – therefore bad things”, one might equally say to rationalise an evil god, “ah, but without good things we’d have no appreciation of how bad the bad things are – therefore good things”.
It all makes sense with no god at all of course as some good things happening and some bad things happening is just what you’d expect that way.
Ah well.
But what precisely is it that discerns what is good and what is bad in the materialistic scenario?
Can the properties of material elements discern such things?
-
AB,
But what precisely is it that discerns what is good and what is bad in the materialistic scenario?
We do.
Can the properties of material elements discern such things?
If you accept the substantial evidence to that effect, yes.
-
Firstly, may I ask that this thread remains polite and sarcasm-free - probably a vain hope, but there's no harm in asking.
I googled to find some articles on the subject from Christians. I found plenty, but most were twee, patronising and excessively wordy. This one, (https://www.jesuit.org.uk/blog/why-does-god-allow-such-suffering) though, is reasonably intelligent.
My two-penn'orth: maybe God can't end suffering. The idea of omnipotence, as developed in Christian theology, comes mainly from Greek philosophy - it doesn't have much support from the bible, which portrays God as the most powerful agent, but not necessarily all-powerful. In any case, even omnipotence has its limits. it doesn't include the ability to perform logical contradictions, and even an omnipotent God, having given humans free-will, can't also prevent them using that free-will.
Talking of which, maybe the whole of creation, not just us, has something akin to free-will: it may be that by creasting a physical universe separate from God's self, God is unable to have complete control over it, because it is separate from God.
OK, shoot me down in flames.
Well said.
In creating our universe, God delegates power to the laws of physics and to human free will, but God retains the power to interact with the consequences.
-
But what precisely is it that discerns what is good and what is bad in the materialistic scenario?
Can the properties of material elements discern such things?
Yes - the material elements that comprise your biology can form a subjective opinion: hence my brain considers the continued production, distribution and consumption of mayonnaise to be a 'bad' thing - other opinions, arising in other brains, are available.
-
AB,
In creating our universe, God delegates power to the laws of physics and to human free will, but God retains the power to interact with the consequences.
Evidence-denying faith statement, thus epistemically identical to my evidence-denying faith statement about leprechauns and pots of gold.
-
Yes - the material elements that comprise your biology can form a subjective opinion ...
So how precisely can you define "subjective opinion" in material terms?
-
AB,
So how precisely can you define "subjective opinion" in material terms?
You're trying the argument from personal incredulity AGAIN???!!! Seriously though? Why?
Ah well, there are three possible ways to answer that:
1. With a complete and detailed explanation; or
2. With a partial explanation, but with gaps still to be filled; or
3. With no explanation at all - ie, "don't know"
Now, regardless of which of those answers you're given what would that tell you about the likelihood of your religious conjectures? That's right, absolutely nothing at all. Zip. Zilch. Sweet FA.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp exactly?
-
So how precisely can you define "subjective opinion" in material terms?
It's a function of the brain.
Still displaying astounding levels of hypocrisy, I see, considering all the questions you continually avoid answering about your own self-contradictory nonsense. Your only answer to how "subjective opinion" are defined simply amounts it "it's magic, innt?"
-
Anything can be a miracle, if you choose to believe rather than understand...
O.
The conscious freedoms needed to direct our thought processes to reach such belief and understanding can themselves be considered to be miraculous when you accept the realistic limitations of material reactions.
-
So how precisely can you define "subjective opinion" in material terms?
Brain activity, Alan.
-
The conscious freedoms needed to direct our thought processes to reach such belief and understanding can themselves be considered to be miraculous...
Only by blind faith.
...when you accept the realistic limitations of material reactions.
How do you know these "realistic limitations"?
WHERE IS THE LOGIC YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE?
-
AB,
...the realistic limitations of material reactions.
Except of course you've never managed to explain why anyone should think that they are "realistic limitations" at all. Maybe you'll finally give it a go now rather than just assert it to be so?
-
The conscious freedoms needed to direct our thought processes to reach such belief and understanding can themselves be considered to be miraculous when you accept the realistic limitations of material reactions.
It's just biology doing what it does, Alan, and since we can think and form opinions it seems that your 'limitations' are a red herring.
-
The conscious freedoms needed to direct our thought processes to reach such belief and understanding can themselves be considered to be miraculous when you accept the realistic limitations of material reactions.
Even if belief were a conscious process - which it doesn't appear to be - that you consider them miraculous says more about you than about them...
As to 'realistic limitations', why be bound by those when you can just have faith/magic/spirit and have unrealistically limitless possibilities with no ability to justify any position.
O.
-
Brain activity, Alan.
That is not a definition - it is a presumption based upon your own personally imposed constraint of reality being entirely comprised from the reactions of material elements.
-
That is not a definition - it is a presumption based upon your own personally imposed constraint of reality being entirely comprised from the reactions of material elements.
Don't be silly, Alan: thinking, including opinions about 'good' or 'bad' is dependent on an active brain - and that is a reasonable presumption, as any undertaker will confirm.
P.S. do you have a list of immaterial elements: such as any without an atomic structure?
-
That is not a definition - it is a presumption based upon your own personally imposed constraint of reality being entirely comprised from the reactions of material elements.
When have you offered anything remotely like a definition of anything in your reasoning- and thought-free fantasy version of reality?
Stop being such a hypocrite.
-
...based upon your own personally imposed constraint of reality being entirely comprised from the reactions of material elements.
It's not personally imposed, it's based on the total lack of evidence for anything else. And your own ideas are logically self-contradictory for reasons that have nothing to do with any constraint of things being physical.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO PRODUCE THE LOGIC YOU SAID YOU HAD?
-
It's not personally imposed, it's based on the total lack of evidence for anything else. And your own ideas are logically self-contradictory for reasons that have nothing to do with any constraint of things being physical.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO PRODUCE THE LOGIC YOU SAID YOU HAD?
You're asking Alan to give you something that wasn't indoctrinated into his head when his catholic mentors, whoever they happened to be, were putting him through his standard catholic indoctrination sphiel and because of that, you shouldn't be asking him these nasty, dammed awkward questions, you're just another one of those nasty people like Bluehiliside Retd!
Regards, ippy.
-
It's not personally imposed, it's based on the total lack of evidence for anything else. And your own ideas are logically self-contradictory for reasons that have nothing to do with any constraint of things being physical.
You consistently claim that the word "physical" is irrelevant. But the logic you claim to know is entirely based upon the time dependent mechanistic "cause and effect" scenario observed within physical activity of material elements. A scenario which totally fails to account for the conscious freedoms we all enjoy. You consistently ignore the evidence that this reality indicates that our choices are driven from a source which exists and acts in the present, not just reacts to the past. The source is YOU.
-
The source is YOU.
And 'you' are your biology, Alan: this should be self-evident even to you.
-
And 'you' are your biology, Alan: this should be self-evident even to you.
Ah, but to Alan he is his God given soul which inhabits and makes use of his biology.
-
AB,
You consistently claim that the word "physical" is irrelevant.
Rightly so. Does 2+2=4 have to be "physical" to be true?
But the logic you claim to know is entirely based upon the time dependent mechanistic "cause and effect" scenario observed within physical activity of material elements.
No it isn't. The logic is reasoning that stands alone from physical considerations. Either an event happens deterministically or it happens randomly. That's true whether the event is a snooker ball going into the pocket (ie, real) or unicorns flapping their wings (ie, fictitious). That's logic. Your only way out of that of "it's magic innit" is the abnegation of logic - it's just white noise.
A scenario which totally fails to account for the conscious freedoms we all enjoy.
That's just your unqualified assertion again. When do you propose to make an argument to justify it?
You consistently ignore the evidence...
What evidence? You haven't provided any remember?
...that this reality indicates that our choices are driven from a source which exists and acts in the present, not just reacts to the past. The source is YOU.
The "source" is "YOU" in the sense that we're self-aware, but the "driven from a source that exists in the present" is just the repetition if your usual incoherent drivel.
-
You consistently claim that the word "physical" is irrelevant. But the logic you claim to know is entirely based upon the time dependent mechanistic "cause and effect" scenario observed within physical activity of material elements.
The physical, so far as we've been able to determine, is entirely mechanistic in this sense - there is cause, and subsequent effect.
Logically, however, any system requires - physical or otherwise - requires cause and effect, or any noticeable phenomena are entirely random. Those are the two options - random, or cause and effect.
A scenario which totally fails to account for the conscious freedoms we all enjoy. You consistently ignore the evidence that this reality indicates that our choices are driven from a source which exists and acts in the present, not just reacts to the past.
Why is that perception reliable when so many others are demonstrably unreliable. YOU consistently ignore the evidence that our senses, and our perceptions, are not intrinsically reliable, and that just because we feel like we have freedom of consciousness that's not a reliable indicator that we do.
The source is YOU.
And I, so far as I can tell, am entirely physical.
O.
-
But the logic you claim to know is entirely based upon the time dependent mechanistic "cause and effect" scenario observed within physical activity of material elements.
Why are you yet again totally ignoring the many, many times this has been answered and just repeating the same things over and over again? If you have a response to the answers you've been given countless times before, then why not actually post it instead of doing this mindless repetition that just makes you look like an idiot?
Yet again: our minds, regardless of whether they are physical or not, make choices over periods of time, and if all the factors (internal or external) that exist at the time of the choice do not fully determine the outcome, then some part of the choice must be determined by none of them and therefore be random.
I have made no assumption about minds being physical in that argument.
A scenario which totally fails to account for the conscious freedoms we all enjoy.
Baseless assertion. The actual "freedom" to do as we want is, in no way, incompatible with being "inevitable reactions" and the "freedom" you propose is simply nonsensical because it is self-contradictory.
You consistently ignore the evidence...
You can't just assert something into becoming evidence for something else. You have shown no connection between your nonsensical version of "freedom" and anything we can observe or experience.
...that this reality indicates that our choices are driven from a source which exists and acts in the present, not just reacts to the past.
Mindless repetition of total gibberish.
The source is YOU.
I know - and I see no reason at all why I cannot be a deterministic system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system).
Why do you go on with this mindless repetition? You seem to want to present your faith as if it involves some sort of lobotomy.
-
Why are you yet again totally ignoring the many, many times this has been answered and just repeating the same things over and over again? If you have a response to the answers you've been given countless times before, then why not actually post it instead of doing this mindless repetition that just makes you look like an idiot?
Yet again: our minds, regardless of whether they are physical or not, make choices over periods of time, and if all the factors (internal or external) that exist at the time of the choice do not fully determine the outcome, then some part of the choice must be determined by none of them and therefore be random.
I have made no assumption about minds being physical in that argument.
But you have made assumptions concerning time.
Time is intrinsically part of the physical scenario. Time began with the physical creation of our material universe. You can't treat time as an independent entity separate from the laws of physics. The concept that God, the ultimate source of all creation, exists in a timeless state may be beyond our human comprehension, but far stranger is the concept of time existing back to infinity with no beginning. If God exists in an ever present state, then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that our own spiritual nature is the ever present state in which our conscious awareness exists and interacts within this physical, time dependent material world.
-
You consistently claim that the word "physical" is irrelevant. But the logic you claim to know is entirely based upon the time dependent mechanistic "cause and effect" scenario observed within physical activity of material elements. A scenario which totally fails to account for the conscious freedoms we all enjoy. You consistently ignore the evidence that this reality indicates that our choices are driven from a source which exists and acts in the present, not just reacts to the past. The source is YOU.
And how would that 'YOU' resolve any choice expect by weighing options against each other to discern it's preference ? We act on whatever our preference is, but noone gets to choose which preference to prefer. That makes no sense.
-
Baseless assertion. The actual "freedom" to do as we want is, in no way, incompatible with being "inevitable reactions" and the "freedom" you propose is simply nonsensical because it is self-contradictory.
Yet I have the freedom to consciously contradict you. How can such freedom be compatible with inevitable reactions?
-
Why do you go on with this mindless repetition? You seem to want to present your faith as if it involves some sort of lobotomy.
I want to witness to our own spiritual nature as a reflection of God's nature, and I am using my God given freedom to do so.
-
Yet I have the freedom to consciously contradict you. How can such freedom be compatible with inevitable reactions?
You were free to contradict because moderation on this board allows it. That's all. The mods are not supernatural agents, last time I checked.
-
But you have made assumptions concerning time.
That's because choice-making (obviously) happens within time. If something is not within time, it can only be static and can therefore make no choices, nor can it interact with anything - as both those require changes in state, which in turn, requires time.
This is simple logic Alan, that has nothing to do with the laws of physics.
Time is intrinsically part of the physical scenario. Time began with the physical creation of our material universe. You can't treat time as an independent entity separate from the laws of physics. The concept that God, the ultimate source of all creation, exists in a timeless state may be beyond our human comprehension, but far stranger is the concept of time existing back to infinity with no beginning. If God exists in an ever present state, then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that our own spiritual nature is the ever present state in which our conscious awareness exists and interacts within this physical, time dependent material world.
Off you go into nonsensical la-la land again.
Yet I have the freedom to consciously contradict you. How can such freedom be compatible with inevitable reactions?
Why couldn't it be? You are contradicting me because of your faith and your very limited ability to think rationally about this subject. Both of those are because of your nature, nurture, and life's experience.
You keep on making the claim that it couldn't be all down to these things, so it's up to you to provide the reasoning.
I want to witness to our own spiritual nature as a reflection of God's nature...
You are failing miserably because all you are doing is mindlessly repeating the same things and totally refusing to react to the counterarguments or provide the logic you claimed that you had, thus making yourself look like a total idiot.
...and I am using my God given freedom to do so.
Oh, and making utterly baseless assertions like this.
You said you had LOGIC - WHERE IS IT?
-
But you have made assumptions concerning time.
If God exists in an ever present state, then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that our own spiritual nature is the ever present state in which our conscious awareness exists and interacts within this physical, time dependent material world.
How does that even begin to work?
If your soul exists in a state where there is no time, then either nothing happens or everything happens at once.
Thus it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that your soul may already have, from its viewpoint, interacted with this timebound universe up until your physical death.
That being the case it already knows every decision that you have made or ever will make.
Free will anyone?
-
And how would that 'YOU' resolve any choice except by weighing options against each other to discern it's preference ? We act on whatever our preference is, but noone gets to choose which preference to prefer. That makes no sense.
And after consciously weighing up the options, we consciously choose how, when and where to act upon the outcome of this "weighing up" process. Can you not see that it is all driven by your present state of conscious awareness? Your previous posts, indicating that it all happens within subconscious brain activity before the outcome enters our conscious awareness makes no sense.
-
But you have made assumptions concerning time.
Time is intrinsically part of the physical scenario. Time began with the physical creation of our material universe. You can't treat time as an independent entity separate from the laws of physics. The concept that God, the ultimate source of all creation, exists in a timeless state may be beyond our human comprehension, but far stranger is the concept of time existing back to infinity with no beginning. If God exists in an ever present state, then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that our own spiritual nature is the ever present state in which our conscious awareness exists and interacts within this physical, time dependent material world.
'exists in a timeless state' is meaningless drivel, since exists is a temporal claim.
-
Off you go into nonsensical la-la land again.
As you made no attempt to answer the points I made about the nature of time and it being an intrinsic element of the physical scenario you claim to be an irrelevance, I must presume that you did not fully understand the points I made.
-
Can you not see that it is all driven by your present state of conscious awareness?
No, because "driven by your present state of conscious awareness" is totally devoid of any meaning. It's just word salad.
-
'exists in a timeless state' is meaningless drivel, since exists is a temporal claim.
So can you presume that the ultimate source of the creation of our universe is just a "temporal" entity?
-
So can you presume that the ultimate source of the creation of our universe is just a "temporal" entity?
So you ignore the point, and then write more drivel,and a strawman. Entity is also a temporal claim.
-
As you made no attempt to answer the points I made about the nature of time and it being an intrinsic element of the physical scenario you claim to be an irrelevance, I must presume that you did not fully understand the points I made.
I explained to you exactly why time was necessary for choice-making (whether or not the elements were all physical) and you've ignored it. I know that time is part of the physical universe but it must also apply to any entity that makes choices, whether it is physical or not.
If you have an answer to that, then perhaps I didn't understand but I've made this point countless times before and all you do is ignore it. So, without just repeating the same word salad about "timeless state" or "the present state of conscious awareness", you can answer this, then please go ahead.
If, on the other hand, you insist that it is "beyond our human comprehension" and thus beyond any human logic, then fine, you can believe that if you want, but you can't at the same time claim to have (human) logic or evidence to back it up, you can only believe that by blind faith.
So, proper counterargument or withdraw your claim of logic and evidence, it's up to you.
-
but far stranger is the concept of time existing back to infinity with no beginning.
If our universe 'and thus spacetime 'started' 13 billion years ago, why would time exist back to infinity with no beginning?
-
And after consciously weighing up the options, we consciously choose how, when and where to act upon the outcome of this "weighing up" process. Can you not see that it is all driven by your present state of conscious awareness? Your previous posts, indicating that it all happens within subconscious brain activity before the outcome enters our conscious awareness makes no sense.
Choosing how, when and where to act is no different, it is just another weighing up process. We don't choose which preference to have with regard to choosing how, when and where to act upon a desire. We discern it. Do you really not understand this ?
-
AB,
So can you presume that the ultimate source of the creation of our universe is just a "temporal" entity?
So can you presume that there needed to have been "ultimate source for the creation of our universe" at all?
Why?
-
As you made no attempt to answer the points I made about the nature of time and it being an intrinsic element of the physical scenario you claim to be an irrelevance, I must presume that you did not fully understand the points I made.
And to add to my previous answer (#87 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17308.msg792641#msg792641)): since you have made no attempt to answer pretty much every argument that has been put to you on this subject, by your own "logic" I must presume that you do not fully understand most of what has been said to you on the subject.
In particular, when I ask where the logic is that you said you had, and you make no attempt to answer, I must presume that you did not fully understand even that simple question...
-
AB,
So can you presume that there needed to have been "ultimate source for the creation of our universe" at all?
Why?
because it exists, and we exist.
-
AB,
because it exists, and we exist.
And?
-
because [the universe] exists...
So would any "ultimate source for the creation of our universe" that we might postulate...
-
AB,
because it exists, and we exist.
What you seem to be struggling toward here but can't articulate is something like, "I can't imagine that the universe didn't have a beginning, and I can't imagine how that could happened naturalistically. Therefore I'll insert something I call "God" to do the job, and so I won't have to bother asking where this god came from I'll assert that question to be "beyond all human understanding". Job done".
There are several of problems with this nonsense, but why bother with it at all? What not instead just say, "the origin of the universe is beyond all human understanding" and stop there instead of inventing a causal agency that adds nothing to the conclusion and only gives you even more problems when you try to justify it?
-
AB,
What you seem to be struggling toward here but can't articulate is something like, "I can't imagine that the universe didn't have a beginning, and I can't imagine how that could happened naturalistically. Therefore I'll insert something I call "God" to do the job, and so I won't have to bother asking where this god came from I'll assert that question to be "beyond all human understanding". Job done".
There are several of problems with this nonsense, but why bother with it at all? What not instead just say, "the origin of the universe is beyond all human understanding" and stop there instead of inventing a causal agency that adds nothing to the conclusion and only gives you even more problems when you try to justify it?
How come you can imagine the universe not having a beginning and he can't.
I can that's why I allowed for it in my three options for the origins of the universe.
Either it has an external creator, it has been around forever (although we would need an actual infinity rather than 'the maths' or it popped out of nothing.
People of our age remember the steady state hypothesis of Hoyle and the time the big bang became common currency. The steady state did not phase all Christian philosophers at the time possibly because there are arguments in which the infinity of the universe are irrelevant. possibly because there is a different question more fundamental namely why something and not nothing?
In interview with Robert Kuhn Sean Carroll was asked this question and seems to end up admitting there could have been nothing but we have a contingent universe depending on...…...luck.
-
Either it has an external creator, it has been around forever (although we would need an actual infinity rather than 'the maths' or it popped out of nothing.
You're still thinking in simplistic Newtonian terms. If the block universe of general relativity is correct, and there's a finite past, that does not mean that it "popped out of nothing" (which doesn't even make sense anyway), it means that the whole space-time just is. Adding an external creator that also just is, for no known reason, doesn't make things any less mysterious and unexplained.
-
To get back on track of the opening post,
Pain and suffering do exist as a consequence of the natural unguided forces of this universe. But by delegating the power of free will to humans, we have a means to help cope with suffering and pain by using our creative abilities to devise ways of alleviating, curing or preventing these things by consciously manipulating the forces of nature. Such freedom helps to bring true meaning and value to the way we live our lives on this earth. This is particularly poignant in our current climate.
-
To get back on track of the opening post,
Pain and suffering do exist as a consequence of the natural unguided forces of this universe. But by delegating the power of free will to humans, we have a means to help cope with suffering and pain by using our creative abilities to devise ways of alleviating, curing or preventing these things by consciously manipulating the forces of nature. Such freedom helps to bring true meaning and value to the way we live our lives on this earth.
Why do you think that needs free will?
-
You're still thinking in simplistic Newtonian terms. If the block universe of general relativity is correct, and there's a finite past, that does not mean that it "popped out of nothing" (which doesn't even make sense anyway), it means that the whole space-time just is. Adding an external creator that also just is, for no known reason, doesn't make things any less mysterious and unexplained.
I think there are still theories where the universe appears spontaneously or at least before science can probe until physical laws break down. An external creator put in is not for no known reason but due to the two issues of agency and contingency.
Sean Carroll believes that the universe is contingent on luck, that there could have been nothing at all. There is no reason not to have a necessary entity rather than just luck in fact luck seems an evasion of full contingency and necessity.
If there is no reason not to have a necessity then that necessity is independent of the universe and not subject to it's laws but rather the other way round.
-
I think there are still theories where the universe appears spontaneously or at least before science can probe until physical laws break down. An external creator put in is not for no known reason but due to the two issues of agency and contingency.
Exactly the same arguments apply to an external creator as to the Universe. Did the external creator pop into existence spontaneously or is it eternal?
The only difference is that we know the Universe exists.
-
To get back on track of the opening post,
Pain and suffering do exist as a consequence of the natural unguided forces of this universe. But by delegating the power of free will to humans, we have a means to help cope with suffering and pain by using our creative abilities to devise ways of alleviating, curing or preventing these things by consciously manipulating the forces of nature. Such freedom helps to bring true meaning and value to the way we live our lives on this earth.
So, in line with the "logic" you outlined in #83 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17308.msg792635#msg792635), I must presume that you did not fully understand the points most recently made about "free will".
-
Exactly the same arguments apply to an external creator as to the Universe. Did the external creator pop into existence spontaneously or is it eternal?
The only difference is that we know the Universe exists.
Which of the possibilities for the origin of the universe does that actually answer?
-
Exactly the same arguments apply to an external creator as to the Universe. Did the external creator pop into existence spontaneously or is it eternal?
The only difference is that we know the Universe exists.
But what if it is all contingent? What then is it contingent on?
-
Which of the possibilities for the origin of the universe does that actually answer?
I didn't say it answered any of them. What it does do is show that the theist idea of inventing a creator doesn't solve the problems.
-
But what if it is all contingent? What then is it contingent on?
What if the creator is all contingent? What then is it contingent on?
Or is it creators all the way down?
-
I think there are still theories where the universe appears spontaneously or at least before science can probe until physical laws break down.
There are hypotheses that the universe "appears spontaneously" but not out of absolutely nothing. Such hypotheses rely on the concept of "as close to nothing that is physically possible" - but then you have that state just existing for no known reason.
An external creator put in is not for no known reason but due to the two issues of agency and contingency.
If you want to put forward an argument then go right ahead but every time I've asked you before you've failed, including one time where I wasted an hour of my life going through a Feser video that turned out to be yet another laughable failure.
-
I didn't say it answered any of them. What it does do is show that the theist idea of inventing a creator doesn't solve the problems.
The necessary is external to the universe or it is in or of the universe so what in the universe could it be?
It could still be argued that it does not resemble what is contingent and that it is necessarily independent from it.
Those are properties of any necessary before we get to the question ''inside or outside''.
Carroll of course would say the universe is entirely contingent by luck.
-
But you have made assumptions concerning time.
Time is intrinsically part of the physical scenario. Time began with the physical creation of our material universe. You can't treat time as an independent entity separate from the laws of physics. The concept that God, the ultimate source of all creation, exists in a timeless state may be beyond our human comprehension, but far stranger is the concept of time existing back to infinity with no beginning. If God exists in an ever present state, then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that our own spiritual nature is the ever present state in which our conscious awareness exists and interacts within this physical, time dependent material world.
It's also a highly likely probability Alan, that these ideas of yours are not necessarily your own ideas and there's is also a good chance or probability that they could be the ideas of whoever it was that actually indoctrinated you in the first place, probably.
Commiserations.
-
There are hypotheses that the universe "appears spontaneously" but not out of absolutely nothing. Such hypotheses rely on the concept of "as close to nothing that is physically possible" - but then you have that state just existing for no known reason.
If you want to put forward an argument then go right ahead but every time I've asked you before you've failed, including one time where I wasted an hour of my life going through a Feser video that turned out to be yet another laughable failure.
If there is something it is not unreasonable to ask whether there is an explanation for it. Does it have a cause or does it in itself contain it's own explanation?
That is entirely reasonable.
-
The necessary is external to the universe or it is in or of the universe so what in the universe could it be?
It could still be argued that it does not resemble what is contingent and that it is necessarily independent from it.
Those are properties of any necessary before we get to the question ''inside or outside''.
Carroll of course would say the universe is entirely contingent by luck.
Why are you still worrying about some necessary thing in the Universe? Nobody here has claimed that there is anything necessary in the Universe. In fact, it seems obvious that everything in the Universe is contingent on the existence of the Universe itself.
-
If there is something it is not unreasonable to ask whether there is an explanation for it. Does it have a cause or doesn't in itself contain it's own explanation.
That is entirely reasonable.
And the only sane response is to say that we don't know nearly enough to provide an answer.
I haven't the first clue why what exists does exist, and neither, to the best of my knowledge, does anybody else. Science can provide a basis for extrapolation to reasonable hypotheses but none of them can answer the basic question of why whatever they start with exists. Religion is a laughable guessing game, that doesn't answer the basic question anyway, and philosophy is never going to settle the matter because it too needs to start with a set of assumptions - and is anyway, at best, a curate's egg of a subject and not nearly as reliable as science.
-
Why are you still worrying about some necessary thing in the Universe? Nobody here has claimed that there is anything necessary in the Universe. In fact, it seems obvious that everything in the Universe is contingent on the existence of the Universe itself.
So everything is contingent on itself?
OR
contingent things in the universe are not the only thing in the universe?
or the parts are contingent but the whole is necessary?
-
So everything is contingent on itself?
OR
contingent things in the universe are not the only thing in the universe?
or the parts are contingent but the whole is necessary?
Can you explain how you came up with that nonsense?
I said that everything in the Universe is contingent on the Universe. I did not say that the Universe is a thing in the Universe.
I also did not say that the Universe itself is necessarily necessary.
-
Can you explain how you came up with that nonsense?
I said that everything in the Universe is contingent on the Universe. I did not say that the Universe is a thing in the Universe.
I also did not say that the Universe itself is necessarily necessary.
So. The universe could be necessary or contingent?
-
So. The universe could be necessary or contingent?
Well done.
-
Well done.
What makes you say that?
-
Vlad,
Either it has an external creator,…
Do you remember the episode of Porridge where Fletcher was in hospital and Mr McKay was desperate to know what they’d done with the earth they’d excavated from a failed tunnel? Fletcher said he’d tell him in in exchange for a bottle of scotch. Mckay agreed and gave him the scotch. Fletcher called him close and said, “Well Mr McKay, the truth is we dug another tunnel and put the soil in there…”.
That’s the “external creator” argument. It just transfers the same questions about a naturalistic universe to a supernatural creator of the universe.
…it has been around forever (although we would need an actual infinity rather than 'the maths'…
Could be, though “forever" is probably meaningless because it fails to take account to the possible nature of time – looping for example.
…or it popped out of nothing.
That’s incoherent. Various of the competing hypotheses don’t require that (whatever it means) because they posit plausible alternatives – quantum borrowing for one.
Short version: your three possible options are naïve and folkloric, failing to take into account various, better reasoned options
In interview with Robert Kuhn Sean Carroll was asked this question and seems to end up admitting there could have been nothing but we have a contingent universe depending on...…...luck.
Sounds right to me. Luck is identified by the person who thinks he’s been lucky. We may think we were lucky because "the universe" produced us. A differently organised universe could though have produced a different (though equally not very bright) person that thought “he” was lucky that the universe was just right for him to appear etc. Inferring something remarkable because the universe produced us is just the old reference point error (also known as the lottery winner’s fallacy). For what it’s worth I agree with Carroll if what he was saying was that the universe neither knew nor cared what species, if any, it would produce. Why would it?
-
Vlad,
Do you remember the episode of Porridge where Fletcher was in hospital and Mr McKay was desperate to know what they’d done with the earth they’d excavated from a failed tunnel? Fletcher said he’d tell him in in exchange for a bottle of scotch. Mckay agreed and gave him the scotch. Fletcher called him close and said, “Well Mr McKay, the truth is we dug another tunnel and put the soil in there…”.
That’s the “external creator” argument. It just transfers the same questions about a naturalistic universe to a supernatural creator of the universe.
Of course it doesn't. The external creator argument arises naturally from ideas of quotecontingency and necessity and where the explanation resides. It's completely reasonable.
Could be, though “forever" is probably meaningless because it fails to take account to the possible nature of time – looping for example.
That’s incoherent. Various of the competing hypotheses don’t require that (whatever it means) because they posit plausible alternatives – quantum borrowing for one.
Short version: your three possible options are naïve and folkloric, failing to take into account various, better reasoned options
Looping and quantum borrowing....I'm game what have you got?
Sounds right to me. Luck is identified by the person who thinks he’s been lucky. We may think we were lucky because "the universe" produced us. A differently organised universe could though have produced a different (though equally not very bright) person that thought “he” was lucky that the universe was just right for him to appear etc. Inferring something remarkable because the universe produced us is just the old reference point error (also known as the lottery winner’s fallacy). For what it’s worth I agree with Carroll if what he was saying was that the universe neither knew nor cared what species, if any, it would produce. Why would it?
Carroll is just reaching where Russell reached...….his barrier of enquiring....although he's less snappy than Russell but brute fact, stop all explaning, all the same.
-
The external creator argument arises naturally from ideas of [contingency] and necessity and where the explanation resides. It's completely reasonable.
Still waiting for this mythical reasonable argument......... and waiting...... and waiting......
-
What makes you say that?
Because you finally got it.
I'm not arguing whether the Universe is contingent or not, only that the things in it are contingent on it.
-
Still waiting for this mythical reasonable argument......... and waiting...... and waiting......
It's been given to you.
-
Because you finally got it.
No what makes you even think anything about the universe could be necessary?
-
No what makes you even think anything about the universe could be necessary?
I haven't said that the Universe is necessary - or not necessary.
-
I haven't said that the Universe is necessary - or not necessary.
But you said the universe could be contingent or not and you can't have contingency without necessity.
-
But you said the universe could be contingent or not and you can't have contingency without necessity.
I don't understand what your problem is. I have not said the Universe is either contingent or necessary. What I have said is that the things in the Universe are contingent on the Universe i.e. nothing that exists in the Universe could exist if the Universe didn't exist (that seems pretty obvious to me and only a complete muppet would take issue, AFAIC).
The Universe itself is either necessary or contingent. I do not know which. However, if it is necessary, we don't have to postulate ridiculous ideas like the Christian god. If it's contingent, it needs to be contingent on something and then we have the same questions to ask about the something and that leads to an infinite regress if we want to be consistent.
-
It's been given to you.
Where?
-
To get back on track of the opening post,
Pain and suffering do exist as a consequence of the natural unguided forces of this universe. But by delegating the power of free will to humans, we have a means to help cope with suffering and pain by using our creative abilities to devise ways of alleviating, curing or preventing these things by consciously manipulating the forces of nature. Such freedom helps to bring true meaning and value to the way we live our lives on this earth. This is particularly poignant in our current climate.
Free will is irrelevant to that. How would being free of determinism help ?
That aside, in a god-created universe scenario, it is god that creates pain and suffering, it is by god's will that evil exists. What kind of father would justify putting his children in needless pain and suffering on the justification that he endowed them with some measure of ingenuity with which to alleviate the pain he caused in the first place ? Makes no sense to me, I would not treat my kids so despicably.
-
I don't understand what your problem is. I have not said the Universe is either contingent or necessary. What I have said is that the things in the Universe are contingent on the Universe i.e. nothing that exists in the Universe could exist if the Universe didn't exist (that seems pretty obvious to me and only a complete muppet would take issue, AFAIC).
The Universe itself is either necessary or contingent. I do not know which. However, if it is necessary, we don't have to postulate ridiculous ideas like the Christian god. If it's contingent, it needs to be contingent on something and then we have the same questions to ask about the something and that leads to an infinite regress if we want to be consistent.
That's just wanting contingency without necessity on your part.
-
That's just wanting contingency without necessity on your part.
Nope.
Please do me the service of actually reading my posts before replying in future.
-
Vlad,
Of course it doesn't. The external creator argument arises naturally from ideas of quotecontingency and necessity and where the explanation resides. It's completely reasonable.
Of course it isn’t. If you want to posit an “external creator” then all the same questions must apply to it as apply to an uncreated universe. Just claiming the answers to be “a mystery” or some such (ie, “it’s magic innit”) is the abnegation of reason. It’s a cop out. It’s Fletcher’s tunnel.
Looping and quantum borrowing....I'm game what have you got?
I don’t need to have anything other than plausible hypotheses. If someone wants to falsify them so as to clear the way for his faith belief (albeit erroneously), the burden of proof is all with him to show that they are not plausible.
Carroll is just reaching where Russell reached...….his barrier of enquiring....although he's less snappy than Russell but brute fact, stop all explaning, all the same.
Way to miss the point. There’s no “barrier to enquiring” (unlike “goddidit” by the way), but rather the point in logic was that inferring there must have been intentionality a priori for the universe to produce little old you is fallacious thinking – it’s the lottery winner’s fallacy. The universe could have produced anything or nothing. If you want to argue that there must be a god to have made the outcome you, then you also need that god to have wanted it to be you in the first place – circular reasoning 101.
Oh, and you have no idea what Russell argued ether by the way.
-
jeremy,
Please do me the service of actually reading my posts before replying in future.
I admire your optimism. Have you ever known him to do that ever though? Ever ever?
Seriously?
-
Free will is irrelevant to that. How would being free of determinism help ?
That aside, in a god-created universe scenario, it is god that creates pain and suffering, it is by god's will that evil exists. What kind of father would justify putting his children in needless pain and suffering on the justification that he endowed them with some measure of ingenuity with which to alleviate the pain he caused in the first place ? Makes no sense to me, I would not treat my kids so despicably.
As I have explained many times:
Free will is NOT free of determinism.
It is determined by our present state of conscious mind.
The clue is in the meaning of the word: "will"
And God created FREEDOM - both in human will and in the nature of the universe.
Pain is just as much a consequence of freedom as is joy.
We are not in Heaven yet.
-
We are not in Heaven yet.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'heaven'.
-
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'heaven'.
and where its located , because a girl i know told me i took her there once ?? :P
-
As I have explained many times:
Free will is NOT free of determinism....
Well in that case you really ought to stop claiming that is IS free of determinism. You have put up hundreds of posts of the SfG thread arguing exactly that. Every post arguing that determinism reduces choice to mere reaction is a post arguing that human will is free of determinism. Every post arguing that we are not tied to endless chains of prior events is a post arguing that human will is free of determinism. Every post arguing that we are influenced by the past but our conscious awareness has the final say is a post arguing that human will is free of determinism.
Do you really not understand this ?
-
As I have explained many times:
Free will is NOT free of determinism.
It is determined by our present state of conscious mind.
So, Alan, is "our present state of conscious mind" subject to determinism or not?
If not, then "our present state of conscious mind" must be chaotic, which would mean that your 'free will' claim is determined by a chaotic "present state of conscious mind". If so, and since in your formulation 'free will' is determined by something that is itself determined, in that case 'will' is not 'free' as you envisage 'free'.
Either way, your argument is hopeless.
The clue is in the meaning of the word: "will"
The meaning of the word 'will' isn't really an issue: it is when you try to combine it with 'free' that the cookie begins to crumble.
And God created FREEDOM - both in human will and in the nature of the universe.
Pain is just as much a consequence of freedom as is joy.
We are not in Heaven yet.
More theobabble.
-
Vlad,
Of course it isn’t. If you want to posit an “external creator” then all the same questions must apply to it as apply to an uncreated universe.
If you want to say God must have had an external creator then that just is another boon for external creation.
It certainly wouldn't be for atheism.
Contingency arguments don't just posit an inexplicable they state that things are either explained by another agency or the explanation is within itself. If your theory lacks contingency and necessity it isn't fully addressing the basic question.
If the universe contains the necessary entity where and what is it? At the end of the day we focus on what the necessary thing must be like. We know it isn't contingent on the laws of physics or nature.....
Given all that then it becomes irrelevant as to whether the necessary is in or out of the universe.
-
Well in that case you really ought to stop claiming that is IS free of determinism. You have put up hundreds of posts of the SfG thread arguing exactly that. Every post arguing that determinism reduces choice to mere reaction is a post arguing that human will is free of determinism. Every post arguing that we are not tied to endless chains of prior events is a post arguing that human will is free of determinism. Every post arguing that we are influenced by the past but our conscious awareness has the final say is a post arguing that human will is free of determinism.
Do you really not understand this ?
Torri,
It is you that does not understand.
I have never argued that human will is free of determinism.
My contention is that it is determined from our present state of conscious awareness.
You, and others, seem to be stuck in thinking in terms of the time dependent chains of physical cause and effect over which there is no control - because we can't control the past and we can't control the laws of physics. Yet conscious control does exist - it is a reality which you need to come to terms with. It can't be explained away by our limited knowledge of how we presume things work. And our conscious ability to contemplate such matters illustrates our freedom to think. Do you really believe that all your thoughts get determined by your subconscious brain activity - it does not make sense.
-
I don’t need to have anything other than plausible hypotheses. If someone wants to falsify them so as to clear the way for his faith belief (albeit erroneously), the burden of proof is all with him to show that they are not plausible.
So, you have a plausible hypothesis but it doesn't need justified? Your taking the piss now.
-
The meaning of the word 'will' isn't really an issue: it is when you try to combine it with 'free' that the cookie begins to crumble.
It is free in the sense that it is not mere reaction to the past. You need to contemplate the difference between choice and reaction - you are free to contemplate this if you so wish, or you can choose to ignore it. The choice is yours to make.
-
Torri,
It is you that does not understand.
I have never argued that human will is free of determinism.
My contention is that it is determined from our present state of conscious awareness.
You, and others, seem to be stuck in thinking in terms of the time dependent chains of physical cause and effect over which there is no control - because we can't control the past and we can't control the laws of physics. Yet conscious control does exist - it is a reality which you need to come to terms with. It can't be explained away by our limited knowledge of how we presume things work. And our conscious ability to contemplate such matters illustrates our freedom to think. Do you really believe that all your thoughts get determined by your subconscious brain activity - it does not make sense.
And this is one more post arguing that 'conscious control' liberates us from determinism. You simply don't seem to understand what these concepts mean, despite the fact that Stranger alone must have posted up links to definitions dozens of times. The claim of free will is inherently a denial of the reality of determinism and many other have pointed out that this claim is inherently illogical, because 'not deterministic' means random and random is not consistent with will. You cannot be free of determinism without being random for that is what the words mean. Take some time to read up and digest what these concepts mean, until such time as you understand them you are merely running round in circles of confusion and ignorance.
-
Free will is NOT free of determinism.
I have never argued that human will is free of determinism.
How can I interpret this as anything other than a blatant barefaced lie? You have been corrected so many times and you just ignore it. Every time you claim we could have done differently you are claiming that human will is free from determinism.
You are not free to just redefine the word 'determinism' to suit your twisted agenda.
See (for example): here (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg791287#msg791287), here (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg754064#msg754064), and here (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg754084#msg754084).
Please stop this dishonesty.
-
My contention is that it is determined from our present state of conscious awareness.
Still gibberish.
Yet conscious control does exist - it is a reality which you need to come to terms with. It can't be explained away by our limited knowledge of how we presume things work. And our conscious ability to contemplate such matters illustrates our freedom to think.
More childish foot-stamping.
Where is the logic you said you had? Will you please produce it or admit you have none?
-
It is free in the sense that it is not mere reaction to the past. You need to contemplate the difference between choice and reaction - you are free to contemplate this if you so wish, or you can choose to ignore it. The choice is yours to make.
Choices are reactions, Alan.
-
How can I interpret this as anything other than a blatant barefaced lie? You have been corrected so many times and you just ignore it. Every time you claim we could have done differently you are claiming that human will is free from determinism.
You are not free to just redefine the word 'determinism' to suit your twisted agenda.
See (for example): here (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg791287#msg791287), here (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg754064#msg754064), and here (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg754084#msg754084).
Please stop this dishonesty.
It is not dishonest to witness to the truth.
The simple truth that you are free to determine your own destiny.
-
It is not dishonest to witness to the truth.
The simple truth that you are free to determine your own destiny.
Claiming it to be the 'truth' is dishonest, as you have no verifiable evidence it is so, it is only a belief.
-
It is not dishonest to witness to the truth.
Or what you think to be true, which is a different matter.
The simple truth that you are free to determine your own destiny.
You are peddling a lie here, Alan.
-
You are peddling a lie here, Alan.
just as you are free to accuse me of telling a lie
-
Vlad,
If you want to say God must have had an external creator then that just is another boon for external creation.
I don’t know what goes on in the mind of a troll so I can’t even guess at what you get from this kind of straw manning. What was actually said of course was that no such thing – what was actually said was that if you want to posit an “external creator” to answer questions about the universe like, “did it begin?”, “how did it begin?”, “does “begin” even mean anything as space-time itself began with the universe?” etc then you have to ask the same questions of a supposed creator. And if the answer is “don’t know” you may as well say the same of the universe and have done with it. Fletcher’s tunnel remember?
It certainly wouldn't be for atheism.
Probably wouldn’t be if anyone had actually said that, though only if this supposed creator was a god of some kind though.
Contingency arguments don't just posit an inexplicable they state that things are either explained by another agency or the explanation is within itself. If your theory lacks contingency and necessity it isn't fully addressing the basic question.
Yes they do posit an inexplicable – that’s exactly what they do. They just replace one inexplicable with another one. If you’re seriously suggesting otherwise, explain “god”.
If the universe contains the necessary entity where and what is it? At the end of the day we focus on what the necessary thing must be like. We know it isn't contingent on the laws of physics or nature.....
We know absolutely no such thing. At best – at very best – we can say something like, “it’s hard to explain given the current state of knowledge about the “laws of physics or nature”, though we have already some plausible hypotheses that may or may not to turn out to be correct”. Not knowing enough about the physical world no more justifies “god” for you than it justified “Thor” for Norsemen.
Given all that then it becomes irrelevant as to whether the necessary is in or out of the universe.
Given that “all that” is utter drivel, no it doesn’t.
So, you have a plausible hypothesis but it doesn't need justified? Your taking the piss now.
Wow! When you’re in full straw man mode you really don’t hold back do you. Of course hypotheses need to be justified if they aren’t to remain just hypotheses. The point though is that there are competing hypotheses that are plausible based on current knowledge, but that have not or cannot be tested. What you can’t then do if you think “God” is the real answer is dismiss them out of hand – the burden of proof is on the person who says that they’re all wrong to demonstrate that they’re all wrong. And even if someone could do that, still there’d be no argument for god thereby because there’s no telling whether a more compelling hypothesis might not arrive tomorrow.
Oh, and “god” isn’t even a hypotheses at all by the way because it lacks everything needed for it to be a hypothesis – coherence, falsifiability at least in principle etc. That’s why competing hypotheses for the big questions about the universe are in principle at least either right or wrong – they’re truth apt, whereas “god” is firmly in “not even wrong” territory because it’s just white noise.
No doubt you’ll stick to your MO of ignoring or straw manning everything that’s just been said to you, but there it is nonetheless.
-
just as you are free to accuse me of telling a lie
I don't think you are a liar, Alan: in my view your are always sincere but essentially misguided, and that the position you advance here; "The simple truth that you are free to determine your own destiny" is a lie. since it patently isn't true.
I also accept that you don't comprehend or accept that it is a lie - but it is.
-
It is not dishonest to witness to the truth.
Whether what you think is true or not, when you say things like "I have never argued that human will is free of determinism", that is a blatant falsehood because the of the meaning of the word 'determinism'.
Here you are yet again:
determinism (https://www.lexico.com/definition/determinism) - "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will."
Determinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) - "Determinism is the philosophical belief that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes."
Determinism (https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/determinism.html) - "Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs."
So if your claims are true then the will would be free from determinism.
If the will is not free from determinism, then your claims that our actions are not "inevitable reactions" would be false.
Please, please, for once in your life, try to learn something. Deliberately misusing words is a kind of lie. I've explained the meaning of this word to you many, many times, and given references, so why do you just ignore it and go on misusing the word if it isn't deliberately dishonest?
This is not about whether your claims are true, it's just about understanding the basic meaning of the word "determinism" and using properly.
-
It is not dishonest to witness to the truth.
The simple truth that you are free to determine your own destiny.
Your posts reveal no truth, but rather chronic confusion accompanied by a stubborn unwillingness to learn the meaning of the relevant concepts and so come to a real understanding of the issue. Your claims that human will is not free of determinism whilst being free of determinism are not truth, they are unintelligible incoherent nonsense.
-
Your posts reveal no truth, but rather chronic confusion accompanied by a stubborn unwillingness to learn the meaning of the relevant concepts and so come to a real understanding of the issue. Your claims that human will is not free of determinism whilst being free of determinism are not truth, they are unintelligible incoherent nonsense.
To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.
-
Vlad,
I don’t know what goes on in the mind of a troll so I can’t even guess at what you get from this kind of straw manning. What was actually said of course was that no such thing – what was actually said was that if you want to posit an “external creator” to answer questions about the universe like, “did it begin?”, “how did it begin?”, “does “begin” even mean anything as space-time itself began with the universe?” etc then you have to ask the same questions of a supposed creator. And if the answer is “don’t know” you may as well say the same of the universe and have done with it. Fletcher’s tunnel remember?
Probably wouldn’t be if anyone had actually said that, though only if this supposed creator was a god of some kind though.
Yes they do posit an inexplicable – that’s exactly what they do. They just replace one inexplicable with another one. If you’re seriously suggesting otherwise, explain “god”.
We know absolutely no such thing. At best – at very best – we can say something like, “it’s hard to explain given the current state of knowledge about the “laws of physics or nature”, though we have already some plausible hypotheses that may or may not to turn out to be correct”. Not knowing enough about the physical world no more justifies “god” for you than it justified “Thor” for Norsemen.
Given that “all that” is utter drivel, no it doesn’t.
Wow! When you’re in full straw man mode you really don’t hold back do you. Of course hypotheses need to be justified if they aren’t to remain just hypotheses. The point though is that there are competing hypotheses that are plausible based on current knowledge, but that have not or cannot be tested. What you can’t then do if you think “God” is the real answer is dismiss them out of hand – the burden of proof is on the person who says that they’re all wrong to demonstrate that they’re all wrong. And even if someone could do that, still there’d be no argument for god thereby because there’s no telling whether a more compelling hypothesis might not arrive tomorrow.
Oh, and “god” isn’t even a hypotheses at all by the way because it lacks everything needed for it to be a hypothesis – coherence, falsifiability at least in principle etc. That’s why competing hypotheses for the big questions about the universe are in principle at least either right or wrong – they’re truth apt, whereas “god” is firmly in “not even wrong” territory because it’s just white noise.
No doubt you’ll stick to your MO of ignoring or straw manning everything that’s just been said to you, but there it is nonetheless.
You were the one wanting me to treat the external creator the same as the universe and I obliged by saying so what if the external creator had it's own external creator.
Your thoughts on contingency though are basically wrong.
-
To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.
If I ask you nicely Alan, could you tell me how you acquired the information about this soul you have written about, I would find an answer to this question really interesting?
ippy.
-
Vlad,
We know absolutely no such thing. At best – at very best – we can say something like, “it’s hard to explain given the current state of knowledge about the “laws of physics or nature”, though we have already some plausible hypotheses that may or may not to turn out to be correct”. Not knowing enough about the physical world no more justifies “god” for you than it justified “Thor” for Norsemen.
There are no scientific theories for the provision for nature since they start with nature.
They cannot establish infinity......how could they?
This is all just ''science will find a way'' bollocks. Faith in science if you will.
-
To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.
You aren't clarifying, Alan. You're making it worse. If it is determined by the 'conscious will of the human soul'(as you state) then human will is the inevitable consequence of the determining factors of this 'human soul'. So, what are the determining factors within the 'human soul' which would produce the inevitable reactions of the human will in making its decisions and choices? Remember, if you say there are none, then all you have is a random element, which is the only other alternative in a deterministic system.
-
There are no scientific theories for the provision for nature since they start with nature.
They cannot establish infinity......how could they?
This is all just ''science will find a way'' bollocks. Faith in science if you will.
faith in science or faith in a sky fairy ?
hmmmm, let me think about that for a few minutes ..........
-
Vlad,
I don’t know what goes on in the mind of a troll
Could that be due to being a mindless one?
-
To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.
And once again: whether the system is physical or not says nothing about whether it is deterministic. Determinism means (as I've just explained again for about the 10,000th time) that "all events are determined completely by previously existing causes" - it says nothing about the physical universe.
Saying that something is determined by "the conscious will" says nothing about how the choice is resolved or whether it is deterministic. Either it is deterministic, and therefore fully resolved by previously existing causes (physical, magical, or whatever) or it isn't deterministic. If it isn't, then it is partially due to no causes and is therefore partly random.
Stamping your foot and doing your silly broken speak-your-weight machine repetition of the same reasoning-free contradictory assertions while ignoring all the counterarguments won't change that.
Still waiting for the logic you said you had or an honest admission that you have none.....
......and waiting.......
.......and waiting......
.......and waiting.....
Isn't it about time for some honesty?
-
To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.
Read Stranger's reply #152 for clarification. There is no physical determinism, there is just determinism. Neither is there pink determinism or mid-week determinism or late night shopping determinism for the elderly, there is just determinism meaning that events are consequences of prior causes otherwise said events are random, having no cause. You cannot just carve out your own private definitions of words in order to support a conclusion that you like. We cannot be free of physical determinism because physical determinism is not a thing.
Our choices cannot be free of determinism without being random. If you insist that our choices are not random then you are insisting that human mind is a deterministic system, and therefore our feeling that we could have chosen differently (for instance) must be somewhat illusory.
-
To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.
... and from the religious perspective, the action of the human soul is determined by either self centred desires or the Will of God. There is no free will but there is a choice between attachment to the former or submission to the latter.
-
Whether what you think is true or not, when you say things like "I have never argued that human will is free of determinism", that is a blatant falsehood because the of the meaning of the word 'determinism'.
Here you are yet again:
determinism (https://www.lexico.com/definition/determinism) - "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will."
Determinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) - "Determinism is the philosophical belief that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes."
Determinism (https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/determinism.html) - "Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs."
So if your claims are true then the will would be free from determinism.
If the will is not free from determinism, then your claims that our actions are not "inevitable reactions" would be false.
Please, please, for once in your life, try to learn something. Deliberately misusing words is a kind of lie. I've explained the meaning of this word to you many, many times, and given references, so why do you just ignore it and go on misusing the word if it isn't deliberately dishonest?
This is not about whether your claims are true, it's just about understanding the basic meaning of the word "determinism" and using properly.
If you take the "ism" out of determinism, it would help you see the meaning of what I am saying. The quotations you refer to are all based on a particular philosophical point of view which uses this label. My contention is what determines an act of human will. My argument that it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul reflects the reality behind the freedom we all enjoy.
-
If you take the "ism" out of determinism, it would help you see the meaning of what I am saying. The quotations you refer to are all based on a particular philosophical point of view which uses this label. My contention is what determines an act of human will. My argument that it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul reflects the reality behind the freedom we all enjoy.
Whatever it is that is resolving the choice, be it human will, a sparrow's will, a computer program or whatever, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the principle of determinism. Read for comprehension, this has been explained to you so many times it beggars belief that it has not sunk in yet. Irrespective of whatever is doing the choosing a choice is still either deterministic (an inevitable, predictable outcome of prior causes) or it is not, which means it is random.
-
If you take the "ism" out of determinism, it would help you see the meaning of what I am saying. The quotations you refer to are all based on a particular philosophical point of view which uses this label. My contention is what determines an act of human will. My argument that it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul reflects the reality behind the freedom we all enjoy.
In which case 'souls' are 'real' so please demonstrate: a list of attributes and how these can be verified, the mode of action and how this can be verified along with a basis for falsification will be the bare minimum you'll need to set out.
-
If you take the "ism" out of determinism, it would help you see the meaning of what I am saying. The quotations you refer to are all based on a particular philosophical point of view which uses this label.
I know what you're saying Alan, you've posted it about 10,000 times and I could pretty much recite it all from memory. The point is that the quotes tell you what the word determinism means - and that when you claim you are not denying determinism, that is actually a false statement. Determinism means what you call an "inevitable reaction".
If only to allow for clarity of this debate, will you at least admit that and stop trying to apply determinism to what you are proposing?
-
If you take the "ism" out of determinism, it would help you see the meaning of what I am saying. The quotations you refer to are all based on a particular philosophical point of view which uses this label. My contention is what determines an act of human will. My argument that it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul reflects the reality behind the freedom we all enjoy.
In your post 39498 of the 'Searching for God' thread you said this:
I have never denied that human will is deterministic. It derives 100% from the conscious will of the human soul.
Now the word 'deterministic' means:
relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.
Which means that 'the conscious will of the human soul' has to be part of this deterministic process which you had agreed to.
However, now you say that you would like to alter the word determinism to leave the 'ism' out so that you don't have to go along with what you said before.
In my book that's called hypocrisy, Alan!
I have asked you several questions recently:
1) On April 5th(on this thread):
So, what are the determining factors within the 'human soul' which would produce the inevitable reactions of the human will in making its decisions and choices?
2) On Feb 23rd(on the 'Searching for God' thread):
How do we make decisions? Never mind the 'opportunity', what about the process?
3) On Feb 19th(on the 'Searching for God' thread):
However let's take your first premise, which was that we have the reality of our own freedom to consciously contemplate and think about the source of our own thought processes.
Could you please lay out the logical steps from this premise, such that it leads to a conclusion that you wish to make?
None of which you have addressed at all.
On the other hand, you dived into this thread on April 3rd (Post 49) to ask Blue two questions:
But what precisely is it that discerns what is good and what is bad in the materialistic scenario?
Can the properties of material elements discern such things?
to which you got immediate answers in the next post.
It seems to me that you ask questions and expect answers, but if someone else asks you questions, then you ignore/avoid/evade the awkward parts or simply don't bother to answer at all.
In my book that's called hypocrisy, Alan!
-
I know what you're saying Alan, you've posted it about 10,000 times and I could pretty much recite it all from memory. The point is that the quotes tell you what the word determinism means - and that when you claim you are not denying determinism, that is actually a false statement. Determinism means what you call an "inevitable reaction".
If only to allow for clarity of this debate, will you at least admit that and stop trying to apply determinism to what you are proposing?
So what determines "Love". Do you consider Love to be just an inevitable, unavoidable reaction?
For God so Loved the world, that He sent His only son ....
God gave us the ability to love, as He loved, through the gift of free will.
-
In your post 39498 of the 'Searching for God' thread you said this:
I have never denied that human will is deterministic. It derives 100% from the conscious will of the human soul.
Now the word 'deterministic' means:
relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.
Which means that 'the conscious will of the human soul' has to be part of this deterministic process which you had agreed to.
However, now you say that you would like to alter the word determinism to leave the 'ism' out so that you don't have to go along with what you said before.
In my book that's called hypocrisy, Alan!
The selected quote relating to "deterministic" begins with the words:
" relating to the philosophical doctrine ..."
A philosophical doctrine can't be regarded as a definition of truth - it is a belief in the same category as many other doctrines, and as such can't be regarded as the absolute truth you and others try to imply.
-
The selected quote relating to "deterministic" begins with the words:
" relating to the philosophical doctrine ..."
A philosophical doctrine can't be regarded as a definition of truth - it is a belief in the same category as many other doctrines, and as such can't be regarded as the absolute truth you and others try to imply.
Oh FFS, this isn't rocket science! It's just about using words correctly - have you never learned to use a dictionary?
The words deterministic and determinism are defined as relating to the philosophical doctrine. Hence, when you say "I have never denied that human will is deterministic", you are saying that you have never denied the doctrine - which you quite obviously have and do.
Regardless of the truth or falsity of either your claims or those of (the philosophical doctrine of) determinism, your claims about human will do deny the truth of the (the philosophical doctrine of) determinism, so you saying "I have never denied that human will is deterministic" is a false statement.
-
I know what you're saying Alan, you've posted it about 10,000 times and I could pretty much recite it all from memory. The point is that the quotes tell you what the word determinism means - and that when you claim you are not denying determinism, that is actually a false statement. Determinism means what you call an "inevitable reaction".
If only to allow for clarity of this debate, will you at least admit that and stop trying to apply determinism to what you are proposing?
So what determines "Love". Do you consider Love to be just an inevitable, unavoidable reaction?
What the fuck has that got to do with my post that you quoted?
Why won't you just admit that you were using the word determinism incorrectly?
-
The selected quote relating to "deterministic" begins with the words:
" relating to the philosophical doctrine ..."
A philosophical doctrine can't be regarded as a definition of truth - it is a belief in the same category as many other doctrines, and as such can't be regarded as the absolute truth you and others try to imply.
Are you deliberately being obtuse? I did not and have never suggested in any way that this was an absolute truth. What I suggested, and your words bear witness to that fact, is that you 'have 'never denied that the human will is deterministic'. Yet you now say that you want to get rid of the 'ism' so that you can change the meaning to suit yourself.
In my book that's called hypocrisy, Alan!
Duly noted also is the way you have completely ignored my second point, not that I'm surprised. If you are an example of what your religion does for you, I would really not wish to be any part of it.
-
religious conditioning perhaps ,Alan?
https://youtu.be/MAdyRwmHMc8
-
religious conditioning perhaps ,Alan?
https://youtu.be/MAdyRwmHMc8
I remember my old dad, a bluff scotsman, saying that they invented Yorkshire pudding so they wouldn't have to give their kids so much meat.
-
Are you deliberately being obtuse? I did not and have never suggested in any way that this was an absolute truth. What I suggested, and your words bear witness to that fact, is that you 'have 'never denied that the human will is deterministic'. Yet you now say that you want to get rid of the 'ism' so that you can change the meaning to suit yourself.
What I disagree with is simply the claim within the "determinism" quote that "events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will." My contention is that "will" is the determining source. My claim that we have conscious freedom to determine our own thoughts, words and actions can still be considered as deterministic because human willpower is the determining factor. I know that this contradicts the quoted doctrine of determinism, but this doctrine does not alter or define the meaning of "deterministic" in the context I used it.
-
I remember my old dad, a bluff scotsman, saying that they invented Yorkshire pudding so they wouldn't have to give their kids so much meat.
I can confirm that is ........TRUE
my granny would give us a plate sized pud with either onion gravy or jam BEFORE the main course . bloody gorgeous !
-
What I disagree with is simply the claim within the "determinism" quote that "events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will." My contention is that "will" is the determining source. My claim that we have conscious freedom to determine our own thoughts, words and actions can still be considered as deterministic because human willpower is the determining factor. I know that this contradicts the quoted doctrine of determinism, but this doctrine does not alter or define the meaning of "deterministic" in the context I used it.
What the hell is wrong with you Alan? You're arguing against the English language!
Like it or not, the words 'deterministic (https://www.lexico.com/definition/deterministic)' and 'determinism (https://www.lexico.com/definition/determinism)' mean what they mean in the English language, regardless of whether you think the world works like that or not. Trying to redefine the English language is childish and idiotic. I can't make the word "carrot" mean "melon" just because I don't like it.
If you think human will doesn't operate deterministically (https://www.lexico.com/definition/deterministically), according to the word's accepted definition, (which you obviously don't) then you'll have to use another term to describe the way you think it works. It's not like the term isn't commonly used in the context of "free will", that's why compatibilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) (which you also disagree with) is defined in terms of determinism (https://www.lexico.com/definition/determinism). This is the problem with not doing your homework.
You're not Humpty Dumpty, you have to accept the language as it is - grow the fuck up!
-
What I disagree with is simply the claim within the "determinism" quote that "events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will." My contention is that "will" is the determining source.
So, is 'will' immune from determinsim?
My claim that we have conscious freedom to determine our own thoughts, words and actions can still be considered as deterministic because human willpower is the determining factor.
Then you need to explain why will is some kind of source of determinism while not being subject to determinism.
I know that this contradicts the quoted doctrine of determinism, but this doctrine does not alter or define the meaning of "deterministic" in the context I used it.
That, Alan, is because your 'context' is nonsensically incoherent and, moreover, you don't get to invent your own definitions of well-established terms.
-
What the hell is wrong with you Alan? You're arguing against the English language!
Like it or not, the words 'deterministic (https://www.lexico.com/definition/deterministic)' and 'determinism (https://www.lexico.com/definition/determinism)' mean what they mean in the English language, regardless of whether you think the world works like that or not. Trying to redefine the English language is childish and idiotic. I can't make the word "carrot" mean "melon" just because I don't like it.
If you think human will doesn't operate deterministically (https://www.lexico.com/definition/deterministically), according to the word's accepted definition, (which you obviously don't) then you'll have to use another term to describe the way you think it works. It's not like the term isn't commonly used in the context of "free will", that's why compatibilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) (which you also disagree with) is defined in terms of determinism (https://www.lexico.com/definition/determinism). This is the problem with not doing your homework.
You're not Humpty Dumpty, you have to accept the language as it is - grow the fuck up!
I was presuming the word "deterministic" was being used as it pertains to the verb "determine" rather than the philosophical doctrine of determinism.
If you do not agree with me using it in this context, you can simply translate my intended meaning to be "determined by the power of conscious human will". You really are splitting hairs in this.
-
I was presuming the word "deterministic" was being used as it pertains to the verb "determine" rather than the philosophical doctrine of determinism.
If you do not agree with me using it in this context, you can simply translate my intended meaning to be "determined by the power of conscious human will". You really are splitting hairs in this.
Lying drivel
-
I was presuming the word "deterministic" was being used as it pertains to the verb "determine" rather than the philosophical doctrine of determinism.
You "presumed" wrong, not only is that not what the word means, it's been explained to you multiple times that that is not what it means and that it isn't the way everybody else is using the word. So making such a "presumption" was either incredibly stupid of you, an admission that you've been paying no attention at all, or saying that you were making the presumption is just a lie.
deterministic (https://www.lexico.com/definition/deterministic) - Relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.
deterministic (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/deterministic) - believing that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way, or relating to this belief
deterministic (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deterministic) - the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.
deterministic (https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/deterministic) - using or believing in the idea that everything is caused by another event or action and so you are not free to choose what you do
And so on, and so on, and so on...
If you do not agree with me using it in this context, you can simply translate my intended meaning to be "determined by the power of conscious human will". You really are splitting hairs in this.
It's not splitting hairs, it makes communicating with you difficult because you keep on twisting the meanings of words so you can avoid the actual points - hence all the stupid protestations that you've never denied determinism when people use the word in its usual way. Distorting the language is a kind of lying and you do the same sort of thing with words like "choice" and "control".
And anyway, why should everybody else have to learn Alan baby-speak instead of you actually learning to use a dictionary?
-
I was presuming the word "deterministic" was being used as it pertains to the verb "determine" rather than the philosophical doctrine of determinism.
Bollocks: you well know what is meant by determinism, since this has been explained to you many times - such as in #152 in this very thread when Stranger did so again, using in a large red font. So you have no reason to indulge in mendacious equivocation or an excuse for pretending you haven't.
If you do not agree with me using it in this context, you can simply translate my intended meaning to be "determined by the power of conscious human will". You really are splitting hairs in this.
Or you can simply stop the mendacious equivocation.
-
Vlad,
Of course hypotheses need to be justified if they aren’t to remain just hypotheses. The point though is that there are competing hypotheses that are plausible based on current knowledge, but that have not or cannot be tested.
Oh, and “god” isn’t even a hypotheses at all by the way because it lacks everything needed for it to be a hypothesis – coherence, falsifiability at least in principle etc.
So, in paragraph two you are saying the God hypothesis isn't because it lacks falsifiability but then in paragraph one you talk about ''competing hypotheses that are plausible based on current knowledge, but that have not or cannot be tested.''
You are quite confused here aren't you? I agree that those that cannot be tested aren't ''plausible hypothesis though''
So since we are here testability would seem to upset any proposal of establishing anything infinite.
Which means I suppose we are waiting on ''quantum fluctuations'' or ''borrowing'' throwing up new universes repeatably.
And then of course we are left with the question. What is the origin of quantum fields Quantum fields?
Some times I feel in the one argument quantum fields are being used as ''Starting the universe'' and yet are also used to show how the universe is infinite. This use of the same thing in two contradictory ideas looks fallacious.
-
So, in paragraph two you are saying the God hypothesis isn't because it lacks falsifiability but then in paragraph one you talk about ''competing hypotheses that are plausible based on current knowledge, but that have not or cannot be tested.''
You are quite confused here aren't you? I agree that those that cannot be tested aren't ''plausible hypothesis though''
So since we are here testability would seem to upset any proposal of establishing anything infinite.
Which means I suppose we are waiting on ''quantum fluctuations'' or ''borrowing'' throwing up new universes repeatably.
And then of course we are left with the question. What is the origin of quantum fields Quantum fields?
Some times I feel in the one argument quantum fields are being used as ''Starting the universe'' and yet are also used to show how the universe is infinite. This use of the same thing in two contradictory ideas looks fallacious.
Is English your first language, your posts don't give that impression? ::)
-
Is English your first language, your posts don't give that impression? ::)
Why, have you got something against foreigners?
-
Why, have you got something against foreigners?
Of course not, but most of your posts make very little sense.
-
Of course not, but most of your posts make very little sense.
a) Do you actually read them?
b) They always seem to get a good response. I expect the board ground to a virtual halt when I was gone. ;)
-
a) Do you actually read them?
b) They always seem to get a good response. I expect the board ground to a virtual halt when I was gone. ;)
You enjoy being a WUM. ;D
-
Is English your first language, your posts don't give that impression? ::)
Question mark after "language"; new sentence at "Your"; and a full stop or exclamation mark after "impression".
-
Question mark after "language"; new sentence at "Your"; and a full stop or exclamation mark after "impression".
Thank you for that lesson, I will help you when your spelling gets a bit muddled. ;D
-
Question mark after "language"; new sentence at "Your"; and a full stop or exclamation mark after "impression".
Living up to your nom-de-plume I see!
However, I cannot see what this comment has to do with the title of the thread.
-
Living up to your nom-de-plume I see!
However, I cannot see what this comment has to do with the title of the thread.
You need to understand that this is just 2 posters having a private flirt over multiple threads.
-
You need to understand that this is just 2 posters having a private flirt over multiple threads.
Yeah. I’m staying out of it.
-
You need to understand that this is just 2 posters having a private flirt over multiple threads.
Oh sorry - might this support a "Private Flirt" topic?
-
Oh sorry - might this support a "Private Flirt" topic?
I think that might be limiting?
-
Living up to your nom-de-plume I see!
However, I cannot see what this comment has to do with the title of the thread.
I was pointing out the irony of LR criticising someone else's English with a badly-puntuated post.
-
I was pointing out the irony of LR criticising someone else's English with a badly-puntuated post.
No hyphen needed between "badly" and "puntuated" [sic]. "Punctuated" spelled incorrectly.
-
I was pointing out the irony of LR criticising someone else's English with a badly-puntuated post.
The irony is that you criticised my post, but don't bother to check your BAD spelling! ::)
-
The irony is that you criticised my post, but don't bother to check your BAD spelling! ::)
Typo. Embarrassing, admittedly. I do, however, know how to spell "punctuated".
-
No hyphen needed between "badly" and "puntuated" [sic]. "Punctuated" spelled incorrectly.
If his championing of Christianity was as good as his nit-picking of everyone elses posts anti-Christianity I might actually begin to read them!
La-de-dah! I think not!
-
If his championing of Christianity was as good as his nit-picking of everyone elses posts anti-Christianity I might actually begin to read them!
La-de-dah! I think not!
"...everyone else's anti-Christian posts...".
-
"...everyone else's anti-Christian posts...".
His sense of humour is questionable too! (also!) (as well!)
End Of! For mine anyway!
May the Old Ones watch over you and yours always!
-
AB,
What you seem to be struggling toward here but can't articulate is something like, "I can't imagine that the universe didn't have a beginning, and I can't imagine how that could happened naturalistically. Therefore I'll insert something I call "God" to do the job, and so I won't have to bother asking where this god came from I'll assert that question to be "beyond all human understanding". Job done".
There are several of problems with this nonsense, but why bother with it at all? What not instead just say, "the origin of the universe is beyond all human understanding" and stop there instead of inventing a causal agency that adds nothing to the conclusion and only gives you even more problems when you try to justify it?
I think Bishop Barron puts my argument quite well in this short video about his admiration for Christopher Hitchens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW8yBnpN48w
-
Surrendering to Christ does not mean abandoning reason or intellect.
One can have a satisfying, full relationship with Christ and still question, probe and explore the dimensions of that relationship.
It does in my book Anchorman, It's such a sad thing to see in otherwise intelligent adults!
-
It does in my book Anchorman, It's such a sad thing to see in otherwise intelligent adults!
Why?
-
Why?
The utter and complete zero amount of evidence when it comes to the magical, mystical and the child like superstition base these rather obviously man made beliefs are based on.
Of course if the world wide media exploded with an amazing revelation direct from your invisible friend with the necessary irrefutable evidence of whatever it might be, proving it does in fact exist, try to be a bit on the realistic side Anchorman it's not very likely is it?
Regards, ippy.