Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:Example of nonsense:

Just like you, I don't choose anything. I do as the cause/effect events leading up to my doing direct me.

You have a drawer with five differently colored pairs of socks in them. You can choose and change amidst choices of what color pair to wear. You can choose five different ways, wearing a different pair every time. But you can't wear a purple pair, because they do not exist - as that is but the difference betwixt choices and OPTIONS. As purple socks do not exist because the manufacturer chose to not make purple ones. That you can either wear 5 different colored pairs, per whatever color pair you can freely choose, or you have 25 combinations of mismatched ones you can choose between, shows you can make choices and that they are undetermined. Determinism you assert would prohibit this ability. And IF such determinism existed at all, it might well be that you would have no way of determining that this was so, as your brain would only interpret that you are making choices. Or not. You couldn't know, IF true. You have no way of knowing anything at all. Not about the choices, not about what is determined. You only know what you THINK you know. Which only encourages endless speculations over nonsense.

But what if the choice isn't really a choice? All the causes and effects leading up to that precise point where he sees the socks, force him to wear a certain pair of socks. He literally must wear what he wears.

I don't know why you free willers don't understand this.

I don't know why you free willers don't understand this.

But in the parallel universe, the "choices" forced upon us by some unknown "watchmaker" are somehow different. In that universe, Rick makes his own samwiches, worships the ground his wife walks upon, NEVER uses sarcasm in his G&S comments, is a Pentecostal, and his favorite holiday desert is fruitcake. He also is fabulously wealthy and has a different name and avatar.





Joel would eat the fruitcake, that's what!

Of course, none of which are actually HIS choices.

Choice is clearly an illusion.*



Don't hate me. I was forced to say this, by cause and effect.

this ends up being just another way to deny the Body of Christ, and avoid "Understand I AM" imo.

Since this is now "Free will part 3" here is the closest article I could find on our main website on the subject,

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ality.html

but my thoughts, if you think people are machines that can be programmed to do what you want with the right combination of words and actions, I wish you all the luck in the world. Because you'll need it with such an outlook on life.

Oops, correction: Joel would (continue to) SERVE fruitcake!



It seems to be the only choice of cake he's offering.

Hortator wrote:Since this is now "Free will part 3" here is the closest article I could find on our main website on the subject,

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ality.html

but my thoughts, if you think people are machines that can be programmed to do what you want with the right combination of words and actions, I wish you all the luck in the world. Because you'll need it with such an outlook on life.

well, we observe that people can in fact be programmed, and at the same time they did not negate their free will, they just abused it or gave it up or whatever. So imo it is natural to at least consider the possibility that God just preprogrammed us also, and ignore the subtleties that free will presents, even though we have dogs to show us the differences, and children to show us the similarities.

Arguments against free will are just attempts to reject God on a different level, using the cloak of "omniscience" as cover imo.

Philip wrote:Example of nonsense:

Just like you, I don't choose anything. I do as the cause/effect events leading up to my doing direct me.

You have a drawer with five differently colored pairs of socks in them. You can choose and change amidst choices of what color pair to wear. You can choose five different ways, wearing a different pair every time. But you can't wear a purple pair, because they do not exist - as that is but the difference betwixt choices and OPTIONS. As purple socks do not exist because the manufacturer chose to not make purple ones. That you can either wear 5 different colored pairs, per whatever color pair you can freely choose, or you have 25 combinations of mismatched ones you can choose between, shows you can make choices and that they are undetermined. Determinism you assert would prohibit this ability.

Yup.

And IF such determinism existed at all, it might well be that you would have no way of determining that this was so, as your brain would only interpret that you are making choices. Or not. You couldn't know, IF true.

Any truth I perceive is because the facts have led me to that conclusion and no other. Just as any truth you perceive is because ___? ? ? ?_________ .

You have no way of knowing anything at all. Not about the choices, not about what is determined. You only know what you THINK you know.

And how do you arrive at what you know? Without THINKING?

Which only encourages endless speculations over nonsense.

Not endless at all. And that you perceive my "speculations" as nonsense is, I suspect, because of an inability to accept the implications of determinism.

RickD wrote:Choice is clearly an illusion.*

Don't hate me. I was forced to say this, by cause and effect.

Now this is one savvy guy.

Hortator wrote: but my thoughts, if you think people are machines that can be programmed to do what you want with the right combination of words and actions, I wish you all the luck in the world. Because you'll need it with such an outlook on life.

I'm assuming your "you" here refers to me.
In a nut shell: Determinism in no way suggests that anyone is programming anything. It's simply a recognition that all things happen for a reason. Reasons that no one has any control over. One does not have the ability to choose between different possible courses of action, as free will suggests.

bbyrd009 wrote:Arguments against free will are just attempts to reject God on a different level, using the cloak of "omniscience" as cover imo.

Never heard this one before. Just how did you come by it? Read it? Hear it? Figure it out on your own?

Audacity wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:Arguments against free will are just attempts to reject God on a different level, using the cloak of "omniscience" as cover imo.

Never heard this one before. Just how did you come by it? Read it? Hear it? Figure it out on your own?

um, no, i don't think i made that up, anyway...trying to think of what key words you might search...ha well dang, maybe i did make it up? lol. I seriously doubt i am the first, and i'm guessing that search has just turned into such yack that i will not be able to direct you to a relevant link.

But i got there by common sense, imo, or standing on shoulders, whatever. God gives us children to understand the analogies in Scripture; and while we are not "omniscient," our kids certainly have the perception that we are, as parents, and of course they just cannot understand how it is that we "know" certain things about them. Right?

So from that, it is not too hard to see imo why people seek to swing the pendulum too far @ "omniscience," in order to negate free will, which after all is represented to us as having "choices," when even a dog has these same choices, but does not have free will, the "knowledge" of evil and good. So, even the concept of "Free Will" is misrepresented, and then negated, to disconnect the Body of Christ from manifesting Christ in their choices, which will of course bring heaven here, but now you are up against a huge body of Est'd Religion assuring people that Jesus "was" God, and has...some other body, from who knows where, that is Coming Back to get them, and take them...Somewhere Else, Someday. Maybe. Conditions and exclusions apply.

thus, "heaven on earth" cannot possibly simply be how we all thought the world was going to be when we were little kids, almost surely probably.

And it then becomes ok to tolerate all manner of evil, today, and trash the planet, today, because "Jesus is going to make us a new earth," lol, disregarding that the earth you live on right now would be considered an alien planet, if you described your life to someone from 1000 or likely even 100 years ago...etc.

there must be Scripture for this, hmm.

Audacity wrote:

Hortator wrote: but my thoughts, if you think people are machines that can be programmed to do what you want with the right combination of words and actions, I wish you all the luck in the world. Because you'll need it with such an outlook on life.

I'm assuming your "you" here refers to me.
In a nut shell: Determinism in no way suggests that anyone is programming anything. It's simply a recognition that all things happen for a reason. Reasons that no one has any control over. One does not have the ability to choose between different possible courses of action, as free will suggests.

this strikes me as a chimera made up of personal preferences and...something...nihilism? Not sure. "Things happen for a reason" does not equal "i have no choices to make," else the difference in instinct v free will is obscured. A dog acts on instinct, for instance, but can still evince preferences--for chocolate, say--and act on choices. So then the concept of "Free Will" is not even well defined, most of the time imo.

Audacity wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:Arguments against free will are just attempts to reject God on a different level, using the cloak of "omniscience" as cover imo.

Never heard this one before. Just how did you come by it? Read it? Hear it? Figure it out on your own?

something else i notice is that "the veil" is also mis represented, in the "no free will" pov. It then becomes pointless to change one's mind, right?

on the other hand--by way of agreeing with you, i think--there is a sense in which it is pointless to argue the morality of slave ownership with a plantation owner, say, who is personally invested in slaves. We all justify the actual enactment of our will, and imo "omniscience" is just another attempt at this.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audacity wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:Arguments against free will are just attempts to reject God on a different level, using the cloak of "omniscience" as cover imo.

Never heard this one before. Just how did you come by it? Read it? Hear it? Figure it out on your own?

um, no, i don't think i made that up, anyway...trying to think of what key words you might search...ha well dang, maybe i did make it up? lol. I seriously doubt i am the first, and i'm guessing that search has just turned into such yack that i will not be able to direct you to a relevant link.

But i got there by common sense, imo, or standing on shoulders, whatever. God gives us children to understand the analogies in Scripture; and while we are not "omniscient," our kids certainly have the perception that we are, as parents, and of course they just cannot understand how it is that we "know" certain things about them. Right?

So from that, it is not too hard to see imo why people seek to swing the pendulum too far @ "omniscience," in order to negate free will, which after all is represented to us as having "choices," when even a dog has these same choices, but does not have free will, the "knowledge" of evil and good. So, even the concept of "Free Will" is misrepresented, and then negated, to disconnect the Body of Christ from manifesting Christ in their choices, which will of course bring heaven here, but now you are up against a huge body of Est'd Religion assuring people that Jesus "was" God, and has...some other body, from who knows where, that is Coming Back to get them, and take them...Somewhere Else, Someday. Maybe. Conditions and exclusions apply.

thus, "heaven on earth" cannot possibly simply be how we all thought the world was going to be when we were little kids, almost surely probably.

And it then becomes ok to tolerate all manner of evil, today, and trash the planet, today, because "Jesus is going to make us a new earth," lol, disregarding that the earth you live on right now would be considered an alien planet, if you described your life to someone from 1000 or likely even 100 years ago...etc.

there must be Scripture for this, hmm.

Thing is, I've never heard any atheist say they needed to show free will to be false in order to reject the existence of god. In fact, there are quite a few atheists who do believe in free will. And although I believe most atheists are determinists, the free will-determinism issue just doesn't appear all that important to them.