Searching for GOD...

[Alien]

Love is not an emotion. It is not attachment, attraction, sympathy. Love is seeing all creation as one and everything as a part of it. All parts of a whole. That includes all humans, animals etc.  Everything fits in.

Except evil

There is nothing called evil. What we see as evil is just some animal/insect behaviour carried forward.... that is unsuitable for human society.

Have you ever been to Auschwitz?

Ok...  But I am unable to fathom how anything can be outside the creation of an omniscient, omnipotent God.  As far as I am concerned everything that exists is part of God's creation....and that includes what you call as evil.

As I understand it, that omniscient, omnipotent God has given us a certain amount of freewill. It may be that there was no possible world where such free creatures would not do evil.

Though we may perceive certain things as 'evil' from a subjective point of view....everything has to be a part of a bigger picture.

Sorry, I don't get your point here.

[Shaker]

As I understand it, that omniscient, omnipotent God has given us a certain amount of freewill. It may be that there was no possible world where such free creatures would not do evil.

That we possess free will is an assertion, an opinion, but not a fact.

Can you have "a certain amount of free will"? If it's only "a certain amount" it can"t be considered wholly free, can it? Any more than you can be a little bit pregnant.

An omniscient and omnipotent god would (a) know how to create that world and (b) would be able to create it, though, wouldn't it? If you understand what those words mean, I mean.

[Alien]

As I understand it, that omniscient, omnipotent God has given us a certain amount of freewill. It may be that there was no possible world where such free creatures would not do evil.

That we possess free will is an assertion, an opinion, but not a fact.

I disagree. It may be a fact, but it may be that we can't demonstrate that it is a fact. Is it possible to demonstrate that we do not have free will? Are we both in the same boat?

An omniscient and omnipotent god would (a) know how to create that world and (b) would be able to create it, though, wouldn't it?

Why do you think such a God would be able to do that?

Edited bit: "Can you have "a certain amount of free will"? If it's only "a certain amount" it can"t be considered wholly free, can it? Any more than you can be a little bit pregnant."

I suppose it depends on how we define "free will" (difficult). I don't have the ability to do whatever I want. I can't, for example, fly, but most people don't include that in definitions of "free will". If we define "free will" to mean that an external entity cannot make us decide something, then, yes, it probably doesn't make much sense to speak of a "certain amount of free will."

[Shaker]

I disagree. It may be a fact, but it may be that we can't demonstrate that it is a fact.

Then it can't be known to be a fact, then, and remains an opinion or belief.

Why?

Because of what those words mean

[Alien]

I disagree. It may be a fact, but it may be that we can't demonstrate that it is a fact.

Then it can't be known to be a fact, then, and remains an opinion or belief.

May I remind you though that you said it is not a fact, not that it has not been demonstrated to be a fact. It appears that we have free will and unless someone produces a good reason to think otherwise, it seems best to assume we have free will. That's surely the basis of our ideas of responsibility, isn't it? If someone does not have the ability to do something, we are surely wrong to penalise them for it.

I appreciate that since we cannot demonstrate that free will does exist, so am not trying to shift the burden of proof, but as far as I am aware no-one has demonstrated that free will does not exist. If that is correct, then we cannot say that the absence of free will is a fact.

Why?

Because of what those words mean

Do they? I understood omnipotence to be understood as being able to do all things logically possible. Actually, many Christians prefer to use the term "all-powerful" because of the misunderstanding of what omnipotence is held to mean in Christian philosophical thought. For example, in Christian thought, God cannot not exist. Does that thereby make him not omnipotent, i.e. because he cannot not exist?

Off to watch an episode of Spooks.

[Shaker]

May I remind you though that you said it is not a fact, not that it has not been demonstrated to be a fact. It appears that we have free will and unless someone produces a good reason to think otherwise, it seems best to assume we have free will.

It doesn't appear that way to a great many philosophers and neuroscientists.

That's surely the basis of our ideas of responsibility, isn't it? If someone does not have the ability to do something, we are surely wrong to penalise them for it.

That basis may well be utterly illusory.

Do they? I understood omnipotence to be understood as being able to do all things logically possible.

That's the updated version which had to be hurriedly cooked up when theists realised that the straightforward and literal meaning of omnipotent leads to lunatic absurdities.

Actually, many Christians prefer to use the term "all-powerful" because of the misunderstanding of what omnipotence is held to mean in Christian philosophical thought.

"All powerful " is a synonym of "omnipotent" (in fact a straight translation of the word), not a different concept.

For example, in Christian thought, God cannot not exist. Does that thereby make him not omnipotent, i.e. because he cannot not exist?

Yes. This sort of nonsense relies on semantic sleight of hand to try (but, obviously, fail) to define things into existence. Kant, above all, gave this one a mug of cocoa and a hot water bottle centuries ago.

[Andy]

If we define "free will" to mean that an external entity cannot make us decide something, then, yes, it probably doesn't make much sense to speak of a "certain amount of free will."

What if, for whatever reason, our decisions are limited to one option?

[Alien]

May I remind you though that you said it is not a fact, not that it has not been demonstrated to be a fact. It appears that we have free will and unless someone produces a good reason to think otherwise, it seems best to assume we have free will.

It doesn't appear that way to a great many philosophers and neuroscientists.

That's surely the basis of our ideas of responsibility, isn't it? If someone does not have the ability to do something, we are surely wrong to penalise them for it.

That basis may well be utterly illusory.

So might the view that we have no free will. Are you saying you can demonstrate there is no such thing as free will?

Do they? I understood omnipotence to be understood as being able to do all things logically possible.

That's the updated version which had to be hurriedly cooked up when theists realised that the straightforward and literal meaning of omnipotent leads to lunatic absurdities.

So when was this "hurriedly cooked up"? Roughly what year? By whom?

Actually, many Christians prefer to use the term "all-powerful" because of the misunderstanding of what omnipotence is held to mean in Christian philosophical thought.

"All powerful " is a synonym of "omnipotent" (in fact a straight translation of the word), not a different concept.

No, it is not a straight translation. Translation is done between one language and another. "All powerful" and "omnipotent" are both English. Omnipotent comes from omnis + potens (if my I recall my O-Level correctly). Hippopotamus is made up of two Greek words, literally meaning "horse" and "river". By you "logic" it would mean that a hippopotamus is literally a horse in the river.

For example, in Christian thought, God cannot not exist. Does that thereby make him not omnipotent, i.e. because he cannot not exist?

Yes. This sort of nonsense relies on semantic sleight of hand to try (but, obviously, fail) to define things into existence. Kant, above all, gave this one a mug of cocoa and a hot water bottle centuries ago.

Try that in non-cocky English.

It does not rely on semantic sleight of hand; it points out that an "omnipotent being" cannot do every conceivable thing. Thinking that such a being could do every conceivable thing is the sort of thing a 7 year old philosopher might come up with but we are meant to be adults. Think about it. If such a being could do every conceivable thing it could exist and not exist at the same time, which is nonsense. Surely you can see that.

[Shaker]

So might the view that we have no free will. Are you saying you can demonstrate there is no such thing as free will?

No. I'm saying that there is a growing body of evidence from neuroscience that free will is likely an illusion.

No, it is not a straight translation. Translation is done between one language and another. "All powerful" and "omnipotent" are both English. Omnipotent comes from omnis + potens (if my I recall my O-Level correctly). Hippopotamus is made up of two Greek words, literally meaning "horse" and "river". By you "logic" it would mean that a hippopotamus is literally a horse in the river.

... which is what ignorant people long ago took it to be, hence the name.

'Omnipotent' and 'all-powerful' are synonyms.

Try that in non-cocky English

I don't do non-cocky English.

It does not rely on semantic sleight of hand; it points out that an "omnipotent being" cannot do every conceivable thing.

Yes it does. That's what omnipotent means. It's only when people realise that this leads to ridiculous absurdities that they do the lingustic dodge of making 'all-powerful' mean 'not actually all powerful after all.'

Thinking that such a being could do every conceivable thing is the sort of thing a 7 year old philosopher might come up with but we are meant to be adults.

We're all meant to be and some of us actually are. If you lot were adults you wouldn't be addling your brains with this God nonsense.

[torridon]

May I remind you though that you said it is not a fact, not that it has not been demonstrated to be a fact. It appears that we have free will and unless someone produces a good reason to think otherwise, it seems best to assume we have free will. That's surely the basis of our ideas of responsibility, isn't it? If someone does not have the ability to do something, we are surely wrong to penalise them for it.

I appreciate that since we cannot demonstrate that free will does exist, so am not trying to shift the burden of proof, but as far as I am aware no-one has demonstrated that free will does not exist. If that is correct, then we cannot say that the absence of free will is a fact.

That we have apparent free will, is eeerm, apparent. Lots of things seem untuitively undeniable to us, but that is often a facet of how things seem to us. The chair I am sitting on feels solid, but it isn't, really. Look out of the window, the sky looks blue, but it isn't, really. I feel like a human, but by cell count I am really a bacterial colony on legs. But for most practical purposes I can go about life enjoying the blueness of the sky and the comfort of my armchair; when I am introduced to someone I don't bother introducing also the billions of cohabiting microbes that form the bulk of me. Likewise i can go around making choices happily without consideration for whether my choices are truly free or are they ultimately largely predetermined.  So long as it feels free then I am happy with that.  But if you want to develop a deeper understanding of what we are, that entails delving down and dismissing our illusions in order to come to terms with the underlying realities of life, and there is nothing that we have discovered through research that would lend support to the idea that we are truly free. Like all else in life, we are the ultimately products of natural law, our choices express natural law, we cannot fashion it, subvert it, avoid it, or remake it by willpower.

[Shaker]

Superb post, torridon. (As usual).

[Enki]

Excellent post,  Torri. 

[2Corrie]

quantum

[ekim]

But if you want to develop a deeper understanding of what we are, that entails delving down and dismissing our illusions in order to come to terms with the underlying realities of life, and there is nothing that we have discovered through research that would lend support to the idea that we are truly free. Like all else in life, we are the ultimately products of natural law, our choices express natural law, we cannot fashion it, subvert it, avoid it, or remake it by willpower.

The final sentence sounds like a defeatist's charter suitable for the will-less, but the earlier points need clarifying.  What is the 'you' that develops deeper understanding?  'Delving down' and 'dismissing' seems to imply intention or the exercise of will followed by a choice to dismiss a seeming illusion.  Perhaps a will free from illusions is a work in progress or something to aspire to and that secondhand information gathered from research just creates another illusion which the mind readily becomes attached to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Superb post, torridon. (As usual).

And yet you will doubtless abandon his conclusions if ever you find a ''common sense'' solution fits your needs a bit better.

[jeremyp]

Superb post, torridon. (As usual).

And yet you will doubtless abandon his conclusions if ever you find a ''common sense'' solution fits your needs a bit better.

The great thing about science is that you are allowed to abandon conclusions if a new explanation comes along that fits the facts better.  In fact, it is considered to be a strength of the scientific method.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Superb post, torridon. (As usual).

And yet you will doubtless abandon his conclusions if ever you find a ''common sense'' solution fits your needs a bit better.

The great thing about science is that you are allowed to abandon conclusions if a new explanation comes along that fits the facts better.  In fact, it is considered to be a strength of the scientific method.

I think that's true of a lot of disciplines......How does that help antitheism?

[jeremyp]

The great thing about science is that you are allowed to abandon conclusions if a new explanation comes along that fits the facts better.  In fact, it is considered to be a strength of the scientific method.

I think that's true of a lot of disciplines.

Which ones?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The great thing about science is that you are allowed to abandon conclusions if a new explanation comes along that fits the facts better.  In fact, it is considered to be a strength of the scientific method.

I think that's true of a lot of disciplines.

Which ones?

Theology. If Jesus tomb' and remains were found that would alter theology.
Knuckle dragging antitheists knock theology for being fixed in stone and then claim it's all crap at the slightest change. An arseclenching act of special pleading if you ask me.

History....talking of which, have any antitheist managed to work up an acceptable alternative history to the epistolary, Gospel and earliest non Christian historical accounts?

[Sassy]

All your post has done is prove you know you have no argument against what I wrote.
It is clear logic that if freewill did not exist that no one could be guilty of sin or breaking the law.
Whatever is really all there is to say. FACT is you do have freewill and you chose to believe the rubbish you tried to spout here. FREEWILL is a fact. Get over it.

Claiming an argument is false because you don't like the conclusions is a logical fallacy. In most depictions, yes, the argument that Free Will doesn't exist does remove any justification for notions of sin or guilt - it doesn't eradicate the notion of breaking the law, but it does call into question a punitive justice system on the back, rather than rehabilitative.

Free Will is an claim that, logically, can't stand up, but psychologically is difficult to let go of.

O.

What a load of crap! Come on O, have you been drinking?

[Maeght]

All your post has done is prove you know you have no argument against what I wrote.
It is clear logic that if freewill did not exist that no one could be guilty of sin or breaking the law.
Whatever is really all there is to say. FACT is you do have freewill and you chose to believe the rubbish you tried to spout here. FREEWILL is a fact. Get over it.

Claiming an argument is false because you don't like the conclusions is a logical fallacy. In most depictions, yes, the argument that Free Will doesn't exist does remove any justification for notions of sin or guilt - it doesn't eradicate the notion of breaking the law, but it does call into question a punitive justice system on the back, rather than rehabilitative.

Free Will is an claim that, logically, can't stand up, but psychologically is difficult to let go of.

O.

What a load of crap! Come on O, have you been drinking?

Brilliantly argued Sassy. How can anyone disagree with such a wonderfully thought through response?

Whilst in the real world - Outrider's post is spot on, as usual. Perhaps you need to reread it and think about it a bit more.

[Leonard James]

Whilst in the real world - Outrider's post is spot on, as usual. Perhaps you need to reread it and think about it a bit more.

That won't make the slightest difference to her conclusion. In matters of Christianity, Sass cannot be wrong.

[Outrider]

All your post has done is prove you know you have no argument against what I wrote.
It is clear logic that if freewill did not exist that no one could be guilty of sin or breaking the law.
Whatever is really all there is to say. FACT is you do have freewill and you chose to believe the rubbish you tried to spout here. FREEWILL is a fact. Get over it.

Claiming an argument is false because you don't like the conclusions is a logical fallacy. In most depictions, yes, the argument that Free Will doesn't exist does remove any justification for notions of sin or guilt - it doesn't eradicate the notion of breaking the law, but it does call into question a punitive justice system on the back, rather than rehabilitative.

Free Will is an claim that, logically, can't stand up, but psychologically is difficult to let go of.

O.

What a load of crap! Come on O, have you been drinking?

Fair enough, Sass, you disagree, but unless you explain why there's not much I can do here.

Do you think that our decisions are not a consequence of our inherent nature and the subsequent experiences? I believe that they are, and there is therefore no 'freedom' in the strictest sense, though our inability to gauge all of those influences accurately means that we can behave as though there is.

Or do you instead think that there is an element to our reasoning that is not dependent upon prior activity, in which case there's a random element? If that's the case, whilst you provide freedom to the system you remove will - this is not 'choice' this is simply chance, surely?

O.

[Alien]

So might the view that we have no free will. Are you saying you can demonstrate there is no such thing as free will?

No. I'm saying that there is a growing body of evidence from neuroscience that free will is likely an illusion.

A growing body? So not proven yet then?

No, it is not a straight translation. Translation is done between one language and another. "All powerful" and "omnipotent" are both English. Omnipotent comes from omnis + potens (if my I recall my O-Level correctly). Hippopotamus is made up of two Greek words, literally meaning "horse" and "river". By you "logic" it would mean that a hippopotamus is literally a horse in the river.

... which is what ignorant people long ago took it to be, hence the name.

Interesting. Please point me to your evidence for this claim.

'Omnipotent' and 'all-powerful' are synonyms.

Not according to the OED. For them "omnipotent" means

1. (Of a deity) having unlimited power:
God is described as omnipotent and benevolent

or

1.1 Having great power and influence:
an omnipotent sovereign

whereas "allpowerful" is

Having complete power:
an all-powerful dictator

We could argue about definitions though until we are blue in the face. However, it makes more sense to understand each other's ideas and actual claims and Christians do not claim that God can do absolutely anything.

Try that in non-cocky English

I don't do non-cocky English.

Which weakens your argument somewhat, but that's up to you.

It does not rely on semantic sleight of hand; it points out that an "omnipotent being" cannot do every conceivable thing.

Yes it does. That's what omnipotent means. It's only when people realise that this leads to ridiculous absurdities that they do the lingustic dodge of making 'all-powerful' mean 'not actually all powerful after all.'

Thinking that such a being could do every conceivable thing is the sort of thing a 7 year old philosopher might come up with but we are meant to be adults.

We're all meant to be and some of us actually are. If you lot were adults you wouldn't be addling your brains with this God nonsense.

Let me ask you to give your evidence for claiming that, "It's only when people realise that this leads to ridiculous absurdities that they do the lingustic dodge of making 'all-powerful' mean 'not actually all powerful after all." Just wanting it to be the case does not count as evidence.

[Alien]

May I remind you though that you said it is not a fact, not that it has not been demonstrated to be a fact. It appears that we have free will and unless someone produces a good reason to think otherwise, it seems best to assume we have free will. That's surely the basis of our ideas of responsibility, isn't it? If someone does not have the ability to do something, we are surely wrong to penalise them for it.

I appreciate that since we cannot demonstrate that free will does exist, so am not trying to shift the burden of proof, but as far as I am aware no-one has demonstrated that free will does not exist. If that is correct, then we cannot say that the absence of free will is a fact.

That we have apparent free will, is eeerm, apparent. Lots of things seem untuitively undeniable to us, but that is often a facet of how things seem to us. The chair I am sitting on feels solid, but it isn't, really. Look out of the window, the sky looks blue, but it isn't, really. I feel like a human, but by cell count I am really a bacterial colony on legs. But for most practical purposes I can go about life enjoying the blueness of the sky and the comfort of my armchair; when I am introduced to someone I don't bother introducing also the billions of cohabiting microbes that form the bulk of me. Likewise i can go around making choices happily without consideration for whether my choices are truly free or are they ultimately largely predetermined.  So long as it feels free then I am happy with that.  But if you want to develop a deeper understanding of what we are, that entails delving down and dismissing our illusions in order to come to terms with the underlying realities of life, and there is nothing that we have discovered through research that would lend support to the idea that we are truly free. Like all else in life, we are the ultimately products of natural law, our choices express natural law, we cannot fashion it, subvert it, avoid it, or remake it by willpower.

So sometimes what seems obviously true is not true. I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but what evidence is there that freewill does not exist? We could bung in lots of words instead of "free will" in your statement. Let's try "external minds".

That there are apparently external minds, is eeerm, apparent. "Lots of things seem untuitively undeniable to us, but that is often a facet of how things seem to us. The chair I am sitting on feels solid, but it isn't, really. Look out of the window, the sky looks blue, but it isn't, really. I feel like a human, but by cell count I am really a bacterial colony on legs. But for most practical purposes I can go about life enjoying the blueness of the sky and the comfort of my armchair; when I am introduced to someone I don't bother introducing also the billions of cohabiting microbes that form the bulk of me. Likewise i can go around making choices happily without consideration for whether my choices are truly free or are they ultimately largely predetermined.  So long as it feels free then I am happy with that.  But if you want to develop a deeper understanding of what we are, that entails delving down and dismissing our illusions in order to come to terms with the underlying realities of life, and there is nothing that we have discovered through research that would lend support to the idea that we are truly free. Like all else in life, we are the ultimately products of natural law, our choices express natural law, we cannot fashion it, subvert it, avoid it, or remake it by willpower."

See? I've changed the subject of your statement and it no more demonstrates that external minds (external to mine or yours) do not exist than your original statement demonstrated the non-existence of free will.