Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Well I'm glad we are agreed on derived ability. You still have to explain derived ability without actual ability independent .
In terms of the complexity you say is responsible for termites that is derived too. That might exclude multiple actual abilities or actual ability in anything physically complex.

You appear to specifically not agree about derived ability.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Well I'm glad we are agreed on derived ability.

We didn't. Stop lying.

You still have to explain derived ability without actual ability independent .

Perhaps a basic GCSE in English would help you? "Derived ability" as you call it doesn't have to be "derived" in the sense you seem to imply.

In terms of the complexity you say is responsible for termites that is derived too. That might exclude multiple actual abilities or actual ability in anything physically complex.

Apparently there are good evening classes that offer GSCEs if you'd like to google them.
[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You appear to specifically not agree about derived ability.

No I think he would agree the ability to build a termite mound is derived. At the very least how does a termite move to do it without deriving that ability moment by moment from something else. So he can hardly deny the derived. He therefore has the problem of demonstrating physically where all this derivation actually has it's source.
If he denies a source he proposes things are actually not derived. What does he propose is not derived? what can he point to? He is therefore invariably on an errand to find where it comes from or he remembers that he is just a New Atheist whose mission is actually to duck things like this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Derived ability" as you call it doesn't have to be "derived" in the sense you seem to imply.

As I said we agree that it is derived.

You seem to want a derived in the sense of not being derived. Same old Hillside.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Never mind that the only way out of the infinite regression problem it causes is, “it’s magic innit”. Never mind that complexity increases because of phenomena like emergence so our “ability” doesn’t have to be “derived” at all. Never mind that, even if it wasn’t a hopelessly broken argument all it would suggest its deism – a disinterested clockmaker god who started it all and then buggered off.

1: What infinite regression problem? The only infinite regression problem is an infinite regression of derivation without actual ability which is meaningless. An actual ability needs no regression since that would mean it would be derived.
2: Even an infinite chain of derivation needs actual ability. A start is not needed so to say we are left with deism might be way off the mark since what is being proposed is that the derived depends moment by moment on the actual. Still, we got you reluctantly as far as an ''almost deism'

[Alan Burns]

So humans existed without god crating them and that time were subject to the uncontrollable forces of nature till god controlled those forces? Seems an odd and contradictory take.

I did not say these things you infer.
Of course God is the source of all creation, but in humans He invested the spiritually derived power to consciously choose our destiny instead of allowing nature to do it.

[Nearly Sane]

I did not say these things you infer.
Of course God is the source of all creation, but in humans He invested the spiritually derived power to consciously choose our destiny instead of allowing nature to do it.

Do you get what a question mark means? How does your reply deal with what you called 'uncontrollable forces of nature'?

[wigginhall]

I was wondering why God created these uncontrollable forces of nature?  Did he do this in order to test human beings, to see if they are up to scratch?   Why did God create determinism?   Or maybe it was the devil. 

[Shaker]

I did not say these things you infer.
Of course God is the source of all creation, but in humans He invested the spiritually derived power to consciously choose our destiny instead of allowing nature to do it.

As Maeght put it:

You believe but cannot prove.

which pretty well sums up the entirety of your contributions to this forum.

As does my answer, for that matter.

[Enki]

Enki seems to have understood and has extended the argument in a non monotheistic direction and has done so without abuse.

......Don't you wish your atheism was hot like that?

I have only tried to understand your position, which to me seems to be some sort of rephrasing of the old 'first cause' idea. That does not mean I support it at all. I suppose if there were such things that we could class as non derivable, present scientific thinking might suggest such things as sub atomic particles were the nearest we can get to this. I'm not sure, however, where you think this leads to, and, in any case, I would be loathe to use your language(e.g. non physical, actual) as I find it far too vague. For instance, When I think of gravity, even though it has not been fully explained, I see it as entirely part of the physical universe. How does the idea of derived or actual fit in here?

And this is leaving aside the questions relating to the formation of new attributes, which may 'derive' from a combination of other things, but are nevertheless new, in that they are not present in those other things in isolation.

I think a lot more clarity is needed on your part.

[Sebastian Toe]

the uncontrollable forces of nature

Can God control the forces of nature?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have only tried to understand your position, which to me seems to be some sort of rephrasing of the old 'first cause' idea. That does not mean I support it at all. I suppose if there were such things that we could class as non derivable, present scientific thinking might suggest such things as sub atomic particles were the nearest we can get to this. I'm not sure, however, where you think this leads to, and, in any case, I would be loathe to use your language(e.g. non physical, actual) as I find it far too vague. For instance, When I think of gravity, even though it has not been fully explained, I see it as entirely part of the physical universe. How does the idea of derived or actual fit in here?

And this is leaving aside the questions relating to the formation of new attributes, which may 'derive' from a combination of other things, but are nevertheless new, in that they are not present in those other things in isolation.

I think a lot more clarity is needed on your part.

Again thanks for many points for thought,
In terms of multiple actual abilities I think that suggests a derived complexity.

I guess your point to be that in a certain reading of emergence a new attribute seemingly pops out of nowhere.

[Alan Burns]

Don't we have free will because we are fallen?

We are fallen because of our misuse of free will.

[Sebastian Toe]

On the subject of Slavery, it was God who freed humans from being a slave to the uncontrollable forces of nature by giving us the ability to consciously choose our own destiny.

When did that happen?

[torridon]

We are fallen because of our misuse of free will.

Has a 5 day old infant fallen because of its misuse of its free will ?

[Gordon]

We are fallen because of our misuse of free will.

Therefore if we don't have free will then we aren't 'fallen' - yes?

[floo]

On the subject of Slavery, it was God who freed humans from being a slave to the uncontrollable forces of nature by giving us the ability to consciously choose our own destiny.

It was god which caused all the problems in the first place if it created human nature, one major screw up!

[floo]

We are fallen because of our misuse of free will.

AB that is a meaningless statement.

[Rhiannon]

We are fallen because of our misuse of free will.

And this is why creation is fallen?

[Alan Burns]

Can God control the forces of nature?

Forces of nature can be consciously manipulated by acts of free will - God's or Human's.

[Alan Burns]

How does your reply deal with what you called 'uncontrollable forces of nature'?

I labelled the forces of nature as uncontrollable to illustrate nature from the secular point of view.  In the scientific sense, every event is an unavoidable consequence to previous events - hence no control, just inevitable reaction.

But by giving us the power derived from conscious awareness and free will, God enables us to break free from this uncontrollable scenario, allowing us the freedom to consciously choose our destiny.

[Sebastian Toe]

Forces of nature can be consciously manipulated by acts of free will - God's or Human's.

So not uncontrollable at all.

[Nearly Sane]

I labelled the forces of nature as uncontrollable to illustrate nature from the secular point of view.  In the scientific sense, every event is an unavoidable consequence to previous events - hence no control, just inevitable reaction.

But by giving us the power derived from conscious awareness and free will, God enables us to break free from this uncontrollable scenario, allowing us the freedom to consciously choose our destiny.

There isn't a single secular view of nature. You sen very confused to even suggest that. It looks as if you have no understanding of what secular means.

[Gordon]

I labelled the forces of nature as uncontrollable to illustrate nature from the secular point of view.  In the scientific sense, every event is an unavoidable consequence to previous events - hence no control, just inevitable reaction.

But by giving us the power derived from conscious awareness and free will, God enables us to break free from this uncontrollable scenario, allowing us the freedom to consciously choose our destiny.

Therefore these uncontrollable forces of nature are, in your view, controlled in some way by your choice of god: surely then it is responsible for the specific outcomes of these not so natural (being under divine control) forces. So we now know what to blame come the next volcano/earthquake/tsunami etc.

[Alan Burns]

There isn't a single secular view of nature. You sen very confused to even suggest that. It looks as if you have no understanding of what secular means.

I was simply illustrating that without God, or the God given gift of free will, the forces of nature are uncontrollable.