To me this feels meaningless. That can sound harsh, but that’s not what I mean. I understand what you are saying, but I just think we overestimate what we can rule out. I can barely understand most experts, human ones. I feel very lost trying to rule out or rule in what a God can or can’t do.
I was just trying to work out what is implied in the orthodox creedal statements logically.
OK. And I do think, in a sense, this should be done, to the extent those ideas are important to believers. I am not sure what one does with what seem to be the results, but it is worth noting.
Does this mean that it could have gone any of a number of ways, that the future was not determined, but rather created, to some degree by the choices you make?
I would have thought that would make it easier to answer, since it is not a strong descriptor of belief.
I was speaking about things in general, but yes, also about the universe.
are some things only caused by indirect causes? If everything has a cause what caused the universe or do you believe it is a steady state universe?
So is there free will involved?
Is there free will in nature? If so, how do you know this? If not, how can man have free will is nature is the cause of man.
Can you see how it is beginning to sound a little confused?
Fundamentalists or really literalists who use abstractions like the ones Dawkins is pointing out that come out of certain minority positions in theology, sure. They deserve to be mocked. But you can’t really confuse this with Christianity.
I actually wish one heard this more often, but at least in online forums it is very rare. I find theists often claim to know why things are the way they are and how the bible makes sense. I think that shows a lack of caution and treats their own religion, when they do this, as if it was another kind of knowledge/language.
Does this mean that it could have gone any of a number of ways, that the future was not determined, but rather created, to some degree by the choices you make?
I would have thought that would make it easier to answer, since it is not a strong descriptor of belief.
I was speaking about things in general, but yes, also about the universe.
are some things only caused by indirect causes? If everything has a cause what caused the universe or do you believe it is a steady state universe?
So is there free will involved?
Is there free will in nature? If so, how do you know this? If not, how can man have free will is nature is the cause of man.
Can you see how it is beginning to sound a little confused?
Fundamentalists or really literalists who use abstractions like the ones Dawkins is pointing out that come out of certain minority positions in theology, sure. They deserve to be mocked. But you can’t really confuse this with Christianity.
I actually wish one heard this more often, but at least in online forums it is very rare. I find theists often claim to know why things are the way they are and how the bible makes sense. I think that shows a lack of caution and treats their own religion, when they do this, as if it was another kind of knowledge/language.
It seems that way to me too, but I dont really think, as I said before
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=179555&p=2324094#p2323722
most Christians really don’t have a mathematical absolute infinite sense of these things. I don’t think that fits with Christian belief in actions in the world. Some may feel like they have to defend non-biblical, extremely abstract ideas popular with certain dead theologians. And that’s too bad.
I take note of them, and offer them up for consideration for what they’re worth which depends on the judgment of the receiver obviously.
If doubt gets you nowhere, try belief.
Exploration without deciding in advance seems to be a taboo. I will walk into your office and try X if you can show me the relevant scientific papers supporting X. I notice that people do not wait for such documentation for other important actions, but certain ones suddenly they will not engage until peer reviewed science supports something. Try it out ‘as if’. See where the experience leads. If some (apparent) value is found, Explore more. At some point you may find you are living a belief and that perhaps this is having it. Or you may realize you lost interest. Either outcome seems fine to me and the process a rational choice if more intuitive than some are willing to admit they can be in other areas of their lives.
Hi, Moreno,
Why should belief be the default position when it can be found in activities of genes? I’m with you on choice. The genes that give us a will to believe do not tell us what to believe.
I don’t think I’ve made that argument.
I am not sure how useful it is to look at myself as determined or not determined by genes in this context.
No, others made that argument. I’m simply saying that determination of the will to believe by genes signifies what others may describe as the kingdom within. Although I’m aware that belief in tooth fairies or Santa Claus may be effective, these are afterthoughts coming from the will to believe. Does the idea of a will to believe as physical in any way prevent one from believing whatever they want to believe? I don’t think so.
I don’t contend there is just a single cause. But to ensure we’re on the same page, can you clarify if you’re talking about direct cause or indirect cause.
When I freely make an A/B choice - whether it be A or B - I have choice in the matter. How can one feel a Christian God when such a thing isn’t even present in our world?
Now you have it backwards. Earlier we were talking about how every effect must have a cause. Now you’re saying every cause has effects. But I guess you could say the cause doesn’t become a cause unless there is some kind of effect. With respect to a freely make A/B choice, the result is the choice. The most direct cause would be my brain.
I have free will to make choices - in which case the cause is my brain. Are you trying to say if I freely make a choice that there is no cause?
God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. I think I already clearly demonstrated that.
All that statement accomplishes is to help make it clear what you believe the term “God” means.
If God nature is to be loving, then why didn’t he save the people of Haiti from the earthquake? It seems God did contradict his own nature by acting in an unloving way (allowing people to suffer when he could have easily prevented it) when he’s supposed to be loving.
Please provide an illustration or example of God transcending logic.
Neither Jayson, Uccisore nor I think you have.
Right. Your acknowledgement that I have accomplished that shows that you recognize that the concept of God is coherent. Perhaps we’re making a little progress after all.
We have talked about that before. The “greater good” theodicy explains those apparent evils.
Allow me to illustrate again.
If God is omnipotent, he can make choices.
If God is omniscient, he will know what his A/B choice is prior to it being made
If God is omnipotent, he will be able to choose A even if his omniscience says he will choose B
- If his omniscience which tells him he will choose B compels him to choose B, then he isn’t omnipotent, as he can’t choose A
- If he is free to choose A when his omniscience said he would choose B, then he isn’t omniscient.
Very simple.
Do you believe God is a concept or an entity?
If God is omnipotent, then he can accomplish the greater good without allowing human suffering.
The God proposal is of something that is above and outside the system of natural law. God transcends logic by definition.
This of course in no way proves that God exists, but it is helpful to actually the understand the proposal before rushing in to debunk it.
The debate might be summarized this way…
THEIST: Something called God exists outside of natural law.
ATHEIST: Nothing exists outside of natural law. Natural law is God.
Natural law is a collection of human understandings about how reality operates.
It’s entirely rational to propose that these understandings would be limited and incomplete, given that human beings are a single species on a single planet, in one of billions of galaxies. What are the chances that a life form so small, and so very young (only recently living in caves) would have a full and complete understanding of reality? For myself, I would propose the chances are probably equivalent to the odds I’ll be able to teach my dog algebra.
Again, this reasoning does not prove the existence of a God. But it does open up the possibility that human reason simply isn’t capable of grasping everything. Thus, it undermines the atheist claim that human reason should be considered the final authority on this matter. It opens the possibility, perhaps likelihood, that something exists outside of what we call natural law.
Where theists get in to trouble is that they often try to use reason to propose exactly what that something is. The better theists content themselves with a word like “That” and then get back to the business of being amazed at how incredibly small we are.
Provide an example or illustration of something which transcends logic.
Provide an example or illustration of something which is outside of natural law.
Sorry my friend. But you’re talking about a Pantheist, not an Atheist. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Your theory that there is something outside of natural law called God, but which can’t be detected using any available scientific tools is no different than Russell’s Teapot.
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
And your point?
Hello Mutcer-
— I don’t contend there is just a single cause. But to ensure we’re on the same page, can you clarify if you’re talking about direct cause or indirect cause.
O- It is not relevant to differentiatiate between the two. Direct cause acts upon the immediate object. An indirect cause acts on a third party which then discharges upon the second. I punch you, you get mad. Direct cause. I slept with your wife…indirect cause. But the point here is effectivity. A cause can be defined as: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. A choice that is free cannot be caused because it could have exhibited a different effect to the same cause. But according to the laws of science this is impossible, and if you feel that to be the case then that is just an illusion. More on this later.
— When I freely make an A/B choice - whether it be A or B - I have choice in the matter. How can one feel a Christian God when such a thing isn’t even present in our world?
O- Good science says that you have no choice in the matter. That this is an illusion. So I ask you, how can you feel that you have a choice, when such a thing, in reality, does not exist?
— Now you have it backwards. Earlier we were talking about how every effect must have a cause. Now you’re saying every cause has effects.
O- If it known as a cause it is because it has an effect, a single, invariable, dicernable, effect.
— But I guess you could say the cause doesn’t become a cause unless there is some kind of effect. With respect to a freely make A/B choice, the result is the choice. The most direct cause would be my brain.
O- Is the state of your brain your choice? No. You are born with it. You can’t choose your parents, so to speak. The state of your brain follows causal laws, doesn’t it? It is at any given moment in a given state, which is a given cause. As such, this brain state discharges a single effect, not an A,B or maybe C, but only one of them. To the stream of consciousness it could seem as if A, B and C are available as open choices, but even consciousness is an effect for a given brain state. It hides the underlying puppeter strings, it is a puppet itself. The scientific truth is, poor Mutcer, that your will is not free, but determined by whatever is happening in your brain at a given moment and this brain of yours is not determined by you but you are determined by it. Therefore the choices you think you make are in fact already made and it was never a choice, but a foregone conclusion awaiting only time to developed and discharge.
— I have free will to make choices - in which case the cause is my brain. Are you trying to say if I freely make a choice that there is no cause?
O- Or your would destroy the basis of science. What you propose is that a single cause, “you”, can have multiple and unpredictable effects. 2+2, in such a case, can equal 4, as well as 13, if indeed your will is free and not an illusion.