Searching for GOD...

[Jack Knave]

How can you search for something that doesn't exist?

Well, you can, but you'll never find it.

Where has all our information and claims of God come from?

From the mouth of men, and that is Its root - no one can show this to be otherwise.

Cue that get-out clause!

They were inspired by "God" to say it. 

But there's no proof of this. They could just as vacuously say "I believe in God". Sadly, for all of Alien's intellectualizing on the matter what his Christianity comes down to is just that, "I believe!!!"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can you search for something that doesn't exist?

Well, you can, but you'll never find it.

Where has all our information and claims of God come from?

From the mouth of men, and that is Its root - no one can show this to be otherwise.

Jack, You start from an assumption that something doesn't exist.
I would have thought it best to start from what is the nature of the claim that something may exist...or even, why is the question of this things existence bothering me.

I explain why it doesn't exist in the second bit - it has come from the mouth of men alone.

The nature of this claim is psychological, specifically archetypal in nature.

It bothers you because your level of consciousness is conflicting with your instinct and animal/human nature.

Lots of things come from the mouths of men so your argument is one of verbal or philosophical incompetence on the part of men generally. However if you follow that tack to it's logical conclusion everything emanating from the mouth of man must be suspect. So you are clearly assuming non existence.....didn't quite catch the last bit.

[Jack Knave]

How can you search for something that doesn't exist?

Well, you can, but you'll never find it.

Where has all our information and claims of God come from?

From the mouth of men, and that is Its root - no one can show this to be otherwise.

Jack, You start from an assumption that something doesn't exist.
I would have thought it best to start from what is the nature of the claim that something may exist...or even, why is the question of this things existence bothering me.

I explain why it doesn't exist in the second bit - it has come from the mouth of men alone.

The nature of this claim is psychological, specifically archetypal in nature.

It bothers you because your level of consciousness is conflicting with your instinct and animal/human nature.

Lots of things come from the mouths of men so your argument is one of verbal or philosophical incompetence on the part of men generally. However if you follow that tack to it's logical conclusion everything emanating from the mouth of man must be suspect. So you are clearly assuming non existence.....didn't quite catch the last bit.

Everything that is from the mouth of man must be tested to the best of ones abilities.

That last bit is carrying on the archetypal psychology. It is about the interplay between consciousness and the unconscious. 

[Alan Burns]

If free will exists then by definition it must not be effected by previous events, but you haven't demonstrated free will exists so asserting this gets us no where.

The reality of free will can be explained in one word:  Love

For love not freely given is no love at all.
The greatest joy we experience in life is to love and to be loved, and my spiritual soul enables me to perceive God's love.  Man made pleasures come nowhere near.

[Maeght]

If free will exists then by definition it must not be effected by previous events, but you haven't demonstrated free will exists so asserting this gets us no where.

The reality of free will can be explained in one word:  Love

For love not freely given is no love at all.
The greatest joy we experience in life is to love and to be loved, and my spiritual soul enables me to perceive God's love.  Man made pleasures come nowhere near.

Nice poetic words but not a demonstration that freewill exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't suppose you care to demonstrate?.......Thought not.

Wouldn't have thought I'd have had to, old bean

You can't anyway because your argument is shit....
and I don't think i'd have to demonstrate THAT, would I old bean

[Shaker]

The argument, far from being shit, is logically sound. Impeccably so, in fact, as far as I'm concerned, otherwise I wouldn't make it and hold it.

That you happen not to like its implications because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear about reality isn't something I have to care about.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The argument, far from being shit, is logically sound. Impeccably so, in fact, as far as I'm concerned, otherwise I wouldn't make it and hold it.

That you happen not to like its implications because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear about reality isn't something I have to care about.

And yet you still have to demonstrate how your argument science proves or goes some of the way to proving atheism, or even that it shows that philosophical definitions are somehow inferior to those of science. It is not that science is a superior explanatory (which is after all your argument ), just that they tackle different domains.
Try to catch up with Wigginhall on science and reality.
You are peddling the science/religion conflict bollocks again.

[Shaker]

Glad to do all that at some point later in the day, or at least as soon as I have the free time. It may take some involved and at-length writing (not to mention some deeply tiresome repetition, since some or even much of the material - Haldane's famous passage on the methodological naturalism of science for example - has been well covered before); but the underlying ideas are easy, so as usual it's not at all a difficult job to demonstrate why I'm right and you're not even wrong

P.S. Wiggy is a highly intelligent, in fact I would say learned, and engaging chap with whom it's always a pleasure to converse (I do like and enjoy just how critical he is of lazy thinking, sloppy arguments and bad ideas he is these days - more so than I remember him of yore) but I don't think he sets himself up as any kind of expert or authority on science and reality and would no doubt be most amused at the suggestion

[torridon]

If free will exists then by definition it must not be effected by previous events, but you haven't demonstrated free will exists so asserting this gets us no where.

The reality of free will can be explained in one word:  Love

For love not freely given is no love at all....

That's not really free though; it's only 'free' in a trivial and limited sense.  Here's an example of why : I have children, I love them, I routinely put their needs ahead of mine in many ways and I ask for nothing in return. That's love freely given in a sense. But consider this : there are millions of children in the world who would benefit from my love, whose lives are desparately poor by comparison, but I always end up ignoring children in greater, desparate need, and concentrating just on my own comparatively well off children. If I were truly free, I would be able to concentrate my resources where they are most needed. But I am not free, I am constrained by my nature, and my nature insists on putting the needs of my own children ahead of others. We are all like this; we are not free, rather, we express our nature and none of us gets to decide what our nature is, it is fashioned by our genetic inheritance and environmental factors.

[Alan Burns]

If free will exists then by definition it must not be effected by previous events, but you haven't demonstrated free will exists so asserting this gets us no where.

The reality of free will can be explained in one word:  Love

For love not freely given is no love at all....

That's not really free though; it's only 'free' in a trivial and limited sense.  Here's an example of why : I have children, I love them, I routinely put their needs ahead of mine in many ways and I ask for nothing in return. That's love freely given in a sense. But consider this : there are billions of children in the world who would benefit from my love, whose lives are desparately poor by comparison, but I always end up ignoring children in greater, desparate need, and concentrating just on my own children. If I were truly free, I would be able to concentrate my resources where they are most needed. But I am not free, I am constrained by my nature, and my nature insists on putting the needs of my own children ahead of others. We are all like this; we are not free, rather, we express our nature and none of us gets to decide what our nature is, it is fashioned by our genetic inheritance and environmental factors.

Some parents choose to kill their children in the womb.  It is their free choice to do so.

[ekim]

If free will exists then by definition it must not be effected by previous events, but you haven't demonstrated free will exists so asserting this gets us no where.

The reality of free will can be explained in one word:  Love

For love not freely given is no love at all....

That's not really free though; it's only 'free' in a trivial and limited sense.  Here's an example of why : I have children, I love them, I routinely put their needs ahead of mine in many ways and I ask for nothing in return. That's love freely given in a sense. But consider this : there are billions of children in the world who would benefit from my love, whose lives are desparately poor by comparison, but I always end up ignoring children in greater, desparate need, and concentrating just on my own children. If I were truly free, I would be able to concentrate my resources where they are most needed. But I am not free, I am constrained by my nature, and my nature insists on putting the needs of my own children ahead of others. We are all like this; we are not free, rather, we express our nature and none of us gets to decide what our nature is, it is fashioned by our genetic inheritance and environmental factors.

Some parents choose to kill their children in the womb.  It is their free choice to do so.

I would have my doubts about that.  It is probably driven by an emotion e.g. desperation, fear etc. in which case it wouldn't be free.  If, as a Christian, you surrender yourself to God's will then you might be free of desire or self will but you would be driven by God's will, and still not free.  I believe that the kind of love Jesus was on about was a more disinterested love automatically expressed from a state of being, as in Matt 5 : 45-48 ..... 'Just as God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on all no matter whether considered good or bad, so should you express your love to enemies as well as friends '. It is non selective and choiceless, but improbable, if the individual is not in that state of being.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Glad to do all that at some point later in the day, or at least as soon as I have the free time. It may take some involved and at-length writing (not to mention some deeply tiresome repetition, since some or even much of the material - Haldane's famous passage on the methodological naturalism of science for example - has been well covered before); but the underlying ideas are easy, so as usual it's not at all a difficult job to demonstrate why I'm right and you're not even wrong

P.S. Wiggy is a highly intelligent, in fact I would say learned, and engaging chap with whom it's always a pleasure to converse (I do like and enjoy just how critical he is of lazy thinking, sloppy arguments and bad ideas he is these days - more so than I remember him of yore) but I don't think he sets himself up as any kind of expert or authority on science and reality and would no doubt be most amused at the suggestion

Asking for an explanation and merely getting an ''I will and it's rather an easy one'' is a bit of a disappointing experience.

I realise Wigginhall will admit to not being an expert on science and reality but he has in the past put a question mark on your assumption that science equals reality....... and he isn't me.

[Maeght]

If free will exists then by definition it must not be effected by previous events, but you haven't demonstrated free will exists so asserting this gets us no where.

The reality of free will can be explained in one word:  Love

For love not freely given is no love at all....

That's not really free though; it's only 'free' in a trivial and limited sense.  Here's an example of why : I have children, I love them, I routinely put their needs ahead of mine in many ways and I ask for nothing in return. That's love freely given in a sense. But consider this : there are billions of children in the world who would benefit from my love, whose lives are desparately poor by comparison, but I always end up ignoring children in greater, desparate need, and concentrating just on my own children. If I were truly free, I would be able to concentrate my resources where they are most needed. But I am not free, I am constrained by my nature, and my nature insists on putting the needs of my own children ahead of others. We are all like this; we are not free, rather, we express our nature and none of us gets to decide what our nature is, it is fashioned by our genetic inheritance and environmental factors.

Some parents choose to kill their children in the womb.  It is their free choice to do so.

They have reasons for doing so based on previous events. How is that free will? You can show any number of apparent choices but unless you can demonstrate that they are not effected by previous events then they do not demonstrate free will.

[Sassy]

If free will exists then by definition it must not be effected by previous events, but you haven't demonstrated free will exists so asserting this gets us no where.

The reality of free will can be explained in one word:  Love

For love not freely given is no love at all.
The greatest joy we experience in life is to love and to be loved, and my spiritual soul enables me to perceive God's love.  Man made pleasures come nowhere near.

Nice poetic words but not a demonstration that freewill exists.

Of course freewill exists.. Who made you not believe in God.

Well then....freewill is a fact and the evidence is that you can choose not to believe God exists. The reality is that it is stupid to argue freewill does not exist as then all the criminals in the world would have a reason not to go to prison. They can claim they did not choose to do what they did, as they had no freewill. They could not choose to do as they did, therefore had to do what they did  because they had no choice.

The truth is that freewill exists and the proof is that the laws show you can choose to break the rules and believe what you want...NO GET OUTS... Unless you want to turn all the prisoners especially murderers and rapist back on the streets.
Why don't you commit murder or rape.It is a choice and amongst everything else it about your freewill to choose.

[Sassy]

The argument, far from being shit, is logically sound. Impeccably so, in fact, as far as I'm concerned, otherwise I wouldn't make it and hold it.

That you happen not to like its implications because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear about reality isn't something I have to care about.

I suppose delusional people make excuses even when they know it is a delusion.
Don't look now, but Shaker is in the altogether....

[torridon]

If free will exists then by definition it must not be effected by previous events, but you haven't demonstrated free will exists so asserting this gets us no where.

The reality of free will can be explained in one word:  Love

For love not freely given is no love at all....

That's not really free though; it's only 'free' in a trivial and limited sense.  Here's an example of why : I have children, I love them, I routinely put their needs ahead of mine in many ways and I ask for nothing in return. That's love freely given in a sense. But consider this : there are billions of children in the world who would benefit from my love, whose lives are desparately poor by comparison, but I always end up ignoring children in greater, desparate need, and concentrating just on my own children. If I were truly free, I would be able to concentrate my resources where they are most needed. But I am not free, I am constrained by my nature, and my nature insists on putting the needs of my own children ahead of others. We are all like this; we are not free, rather, we express our nature and none of us gets to decide what our nature is, it is fashioned by our genetic inheritance and environmental factors.

Some parents choose to kill their children in the womb.  It is their free choice to do so.

You were claiming unconditional love as an indicator of free will; I'm not sure that an abortion choice is really the best example of unconditional love. But notwithstanding that, all you are doing is citing an example of a choice, a choice which is ultimately no more and no less free than any other choice. A rabbit might have more degrees of freedom than a potato plant; a human might have more degrees of freedom than a rabbit. But ultimate total freedom is a no-no, it makes no sense and humans are ultimately biologically determined just as any other biological organism.

[Alan Burns]

You were claiming unconditional love as an indicator of free will; I'm not sure that an abortion choice is really the best example of unconditional love. But notwithstanding that, all you are doing is citing an example of a choice, a choice which is ultimately no more and no less free than any other choice. A rabbit might have more degrees of freedom than a potato plant; a human might have more degrees of freedom than a rabbit. But ultimate total freedom is a no-no, it makes no sense and humans are ultimately biologically determined just as any other biological organism.

I was just pointing out the fact that parental love is not automated by our genes, it is still a free choice to show love to our children, because our ability to excercise free will allows us to not love our children if we so wish.

[ippy]

You were claiming unconditional love as an indicator of free will; I'm not sure that an abortion choice is really the best example of unconditional love. But notwithstanding that, all you are doing is citing an example of a choice, a choice which is ultimately no more and no less free than any other choice. A rabbit might have more degrees of freedom than a potato plant; a human might have more degrees of freedom than a rabbit. But ultimate total freedom is a no-no, it makes no sense and humans are ultimately biologically determined just as any other biological organism.

I was just pointing out the fact that parental love is not automated by our genes, it is still a free choice to show love to our children, because our ability to excercise free will allows us to not love our children if we so wish.

Surly you're not a creationist as well as the rest of your blinkered thinking?

It's survival, those that look to their children, love or other methods of caring, are more likely to have their children survive they then pass on this tendency on and then then on etc, so loving your children and other methods of caring, keeps more of the gene stock going, all with this tendency to love and care; it's called evolution Alan.

The ones that don't care are are the ones that have children that are less likely to survive etc, you must know about evolution, even if it doesn't fit in with your line of thought, that's it crudely without having to write a thesis, how it works.

ippy

ippy 

[Maeght]

Of course freewill exists..

No of course about it.

Who made you not believe in God.

Nature, murture and previous events.

Well then....freewill is a fact

No its not.

..and the evidence is that you can choose not to believe God exists.

That's not evidence of free will if that apparent choice is due to previous influences and events.

The reality is that it is stupid to argue freewill does not exist

No its not - and try not to use the word stupid - its not friemdly.

as then all the criminals in the world would have a reason not to go to prison.

Doesn't prove free will exists.

They can claim they did not choose to do what they did, as they had no freewill. They could not choose to do as they did, therefore had to do what they did  because they had no choice.

Doesn't prove free will exdists.

The truth is that freewill exists and the proof is that the laws show you can choose to break the rules and believe what you want...NO GET OUTS... Unless you want to turn all the prisoners especially murderers and rapist back on the streets.
Why don't you commit murder or rape.It is a choice and amongst everything else it about your freewill to choose.

None of that proves free will exists. The consequences for the legal system are complicated but just because of that it doesn't mean free will exists.

[Alan Burns]

Surly you're not a creationist as well as the rest of your blinkered thinking?

It's survival, those that look to their children, love or other methods of caring, are more likely to have their children survive they then pass on this tendency on and then then on etc, so loving your children and other methods of caring, keeps more of the gene stock going, all with this tendency to love and care; it's called evolution Alan.

The ones that don't care are are the ones that have children that are less likely to survive etc, you must know about evolution, even if it doesn't fit in with your line of thought, that's it crudely without having to write a thesis, how it works.

ippy

I find it very sad that you have to deny posessing your most fundamental gift of free will in order to comply with the limited reality defined by the human deductions of science.

[Leonard James]

I find it very sad that you have to deny posessing your most fundamental gift of free will in order to comply with the limited reality defined by the human deductions of science.

And I find it even sadder that you don't realise that free will is not a 'gift', any more than being able to see is. They are both abilities produced by the natural process of evolution.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

But you do believe that we possess freewill, for me it is a question I struggle with, Einstein calls it a delusion.

Gonnagle.

[Alan Burns]

I find it very sad that you have to deny posessing your most fundamental gift of free will in order to comply with the limited reality defined by the human deductions of science.

And I find it even sadder that you don't realise that free will is not a 'gift', any more than being able to see is. They are both abilities produced by the natural process of evolution.

But if what constitutes "you" is composed only of basic elements (protons, neutrons and electrons) then you are entirely driven by the deterministic behaviour of these elements as defined by the rules of science.  Everything will be pre determined and there is no room for free will events to be induced, unless there is something which exists outside the deterministic rules of science to induce them.  This is why some eminent scientists have had to conclude that free will is an illusion.  But the truth is that every human being perceives the fact that they do have free will.  If free will exists, the source of free will can't be defined in material science.

[torridon]

Dear Leonard,

But you do believe that we possess freewill, for me it is a question I struggle with, Einstein calls it a delusion.

Gonnagle.

'Illusion' is a better word than 'delusion', in this case, imv