Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Then what should he do to stop doing that unintentional thing as you request?

Read and think. Surely yo agree that if someone misunderstands what someone says, they can misrepresent that unintentionally?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Read and think.

I’ve tried to get him to do that, many times in fact. You could wallpaper his bedroom with the complete Tof E in a 48 point font if you wanted to though and he’d still assert it to say something different.

Surely yo agree that if someone misunderstands what someone says, they can misrepresent that unintentionally?

Yes I do. But if he acts unintentionally and continues to do so regardless of what’s said to him, what’s the point of asking him to stop doing that unintentional thing?

After all, presumably just ignoring everything that’s said is unintentional too.

Perhaps his little man at the controls that would give him intentionality is having a sabbatical?

[Alan Burns]

Doesn't that put him at odds with the creed of his church - patrem omnipotentem and what have you?

By creating entities with their own free will, God has delegated some of His power..  He has also created a universe with its own natural laws.  God may well use His power to intervene, but it will be the exception rather than the rule, otherwise free will and nature would not exist.

[Alan Burns]

that doesn't move things on from being determined. You haven't demonstrated what you mean by control or freedom or spiritual. It doesn't help to add further terms that are undefined to deal with undefined terms.

I have never denied that things are determined - the question I ask you to consider is the source of that which determines.  Physical determinacy can be nothing more than unavoidable reaction to what has gone before.  But our most basic conception of reality reveals our ability to consciously control what we think, do or say - and this does not relate to unavoidable reaction.  The source of our control must lie beyond the physically determinate, otherwise it is just reaction and not control.

[Sebastian Toe]

By creating entities with their own free will, God has delegated some of His power..  He has also created a universe with its own natural laws.  God may well use His power to intervene, but it will be the exception rather than the rule, otherwise free will and nature would not exist.

Except - seemingly he is constantly tinkering away by intervening with molecular level dna in order to achieve his 'goal'.
Is that not correct?

[Shaker]

By creating entities with their own free will, God has delegated some of His power..  He has also created a universe with its own natural laws.  God may well use His power to intervene, but it will be the exception rather than the rule, otherwise free will and nature would not exist.

How do you tell these "exceptions" from the non-exceptions? How are the exceptions identified as such and distinguished from everything else?

So the actions of this god character are entirely arbitrary and capricious, intervening to help you find a contact lens but not so fussed about genocide and so forth.

There ain't no egotism like that.

[torridon]

By creating entities with their own free will, God has delegated some of His power..  He has also created a universe with its own natural laws.  God may well use His power to intervene, but it will be the exception rather than the rule, otherwise free will and nature would not exist.

You can't blame mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome on human free will, even if it existed. If you are framing god as the architect of human beings then god is by your account to blame for mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome either by incompetence or by design. Which is it ? 

[Maeght]

I have never denied that things are determined - the question I ask you to consider is the source of that which determines.  Physical determinacy can be nothing more than unavoidable reaction to what has gone before.  But our most basic conception of reality reveals our ability to consciously control what we think, do or say - and this does not relate to unavoidable reaction.  The source of our control must lie beyond the physically determinate, otherwise it is just reaction and not control.

How can you rule out that it is an illusion?

[torridon]

I have never denied that things are determined - the question I ask you to consider is the source of that which determines.  Physical determinacy can be nothing more than unavoidable reaction to what has gone before.  But our most basic conception of reality reveals our ability to consciously control what we think, do or say - and this does not relate to unavoidable reaction.  The source of our control must lie beyond the physically determinate, otherwise it is just reaction and not control.

What a muddle.  If things are determined then to the question of ultimate free will it makes no difference if they are determined quickly or slowly or sadly or physically or spiritually or painstakingly or gradually or systematically.  Determined is determined is determined is determined and whichever way you cut and slice it determined means there is no freedom from determining factors.  Just throwing some hopefully magic word like 'spiritual' into the sentence changes nothing.

[torridon]

The source of our control must lie beyond the physically determinate, otherwise it is just reaction and not control.

The feeling of being in control is a feeling, just like feeling hot is a feeling or feeling lost or feeling happy or feeling hungry.  Emotional states are complex phenomena that derive from simpler underlying constituents and whenever we make choices they are necessarily a response, or reaction, to perception of need.  They have to be determinate, in other words, otherwise choices would be random irrelevancies.  Determined or not is a binary situation and in a non-deterministic universe there would be no stars or planets or tree frogs or people discussing the concept of determinism on messageboards.  The observation that our choices feel free is a trivial observation in the larger context.  Feelings are themselves an outcome of determinism.

[SusanDoris]

Alan Burns

In #20,956torridon wrote:

You can't blame mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome on human free will, even if it existed. If you are framing god as the architect of human beings then god is by your account to blame for mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome either by incompetence or by design.

This has been raised several times. Please provide a direct response to this point, and state clearly whether you believe that theGod you believe exists did this or not.

[Nearly Sane]

I have never denied that things are determined - the question I ask you to consider is the source of that which determines.  Physical determinacy can be nothing more than unavoidable reaction to what has gone before.  But our most basic conception of reality reveals our ability to consciously control what we think, do or say - and this does not relate to unavoidable reaction.  The source of our control must lie beyond the physically determinate, otherwise it is just reaction and not control.

If things are determined there is no control. It doesn't matter the source, things will only happen one way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If we are going to wax both scientific and theological about disease and death let's be a bit more sophisticated about it.

First of all we need to I feel to come back to the idea that death and disease are physical processes like gravity which this forum is fond of.

Secondly we know that we can introduce other processes to counteract the effects of disease but not death.

And that is as far as Science takes us.

To effect the second we have to have the will to do this. We have arrived then at a new category, will, which is not a process resulting in a fixed law like destination. And will is what Alan's opponents have shelved and overlooked here, preferring the inexorable determinism of physical processes such as gravity, death and disease.

Of course superimposing such a tyrannical determinism onto the will of God is going to give you the standard New Atheist tyrannical monster God. But I think the situation is a bit more complex than that.

Going back to the inexorability of death and disease and gravity I also think it's worth revisiting what possible could be making us think Death and disease are bad but gravity, on the whole gets the thumbs up.

[Nearly Sane]

If we are going to wax both scientific and theological about disease and death let's be a bit more sophisticated about it.

First of all we need to I feel to come back to the idea that death and disease are physical processes like gravity which this forum is fond of.

Secondly we know that we can introduce other processes to counteract the effects of disease but not death.

And that is as far as Science takes us.

To effect the second we have to have the will to do this. We have arrived then at a new category, will, which is not a process resulting in a fixed law like destination. And will is what Alan's opponents have shelved, overlooked here preferring the inexorable determinism of physical processes such as gravity, death and disease.

Of course superimposing such a tyrannical determinism onto the will of God is going to give you the standard New Atheist tyrannical monster God. But I think the situation is a bit more complex than that.

Going back to the inexorability of death and disease and gravity I also think it's worth revisiting what possible could be making us think Death and disease are bad but gravity, on the whole gets the thumbs up.

All well and good but the issue has been raised here because if AB's claim that his God has created humans as genetically modified crops which necessitates that hereditary disease are choices or errors of his god. It's a direct answer to AB's position and your list misses that entirely and thereby misrepresents the positions of those of us who have raised it.

[ekim]

If things are determined there is no control. It doesn't matter the source, things will only happen one way.

.... which perhaps ties in with the 'Jesus' method ....  seeing that the choice is between action/non action determined by self centred considerations or action/non action determined by God.  This suggests loss of self control in favour of surrender to God control.

[Alan Burns]

How can you rule out that it is an illusion?

Is my freedom to worship an illusion?
Is my freedom to contemplate my own existence an illusion?
Is my freedom to discuss ideas an illusion?
Is my freedom to ask these questions an illusion?
I think not

[Nearly Sane]

Is my freedom to worship an illusion?
Is my freedom to contemplate my own existence an illusion?
Is my freedom to discuss ideas an illusion?
Is my freedom to ask these questions an illusion?
I think not

You have both been unable to offer a logically coherent explanation of what this freedom can be, and denied it exists by agreeing to determinism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All well and good but the issue has been raised here because if AB's claim that his God has created humans as genetically modified crops which necessitates that hereditary disease are choices or errors of his god. It's a direct answer to AB's position and your list misses that entirely and thereby misrepresents the positions of those of us who have raised it.

But my point is you are assuming hereditary diseases are a bad thing something which cannot be drawn from science which at certain levels is deterministic. So from where do people draw that conclusion?

Secondly I think you'll find that Alan is interventionist. What that means is the universe carries on according to laws and that God can intervene according to his will. A reading of Alan would I think have God intervening to the advantage of people. Therefore I think your appeal to necessity is misplaced but that it is there at all is due to putting God's will into the same category as fixed destination processes.

[Nearly Sane]

But my point is you are assuming hereditary diseases are a bad thing something which cannot be drawn from science which at certain levels is deterministic. So from where do people draw that conclusion?

Secondly I think you'll find that Alan is interventionist. What that means is the universe carries on according to laws and that God can intervene according to his will. A reading of Alan would I think have God intervening to the advantage of people. Therefore I think your appeal to necessity is misplaced but that it is there at all is due to putting God's will into the same category as fixed destination processes.

Since people aren't using science to say hereditary diseases are bad in this sense, I don't see the the relevance of the first your first paragraph

And yes, I know AB is interventionist, and it's the particular take he's explained  on here that is being addressed. He argues that his god makes adjustments to DNA to bring about mankind. In order to do that it must be aware of what it is doing and understand the outcome of hereditary diseases. It therefore either chooses to create then or leaves them. AB's god is therefore a murderer that chooses suffering for children.

[Shaker]

I think not

Well there's one thing you've got right at least, Alan.

[floo]

Is my freedom to worship an illusion?
Is my freedom to contemplate my own existence an illusion?
Is my freedom to discuss ideas an illusion?
Is my freedom to ask these questions an illusion?
I think not

Just because you believe something to be true doesn't necessarily mean it is, if you haven't the evidence to back it up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since people aren't using science to say hereditary diseases are bad in this sense, I don't see the the relevance of the first your first paragraph

And yes, I know AB is interventionist, and it's the particular take he's explained  on here that is being addressed. He argues that his god makes adjustments to DNA to bring about mankind. In order to do that it must be aware of what it is doing and understand the outcome of hereditary diseases. It therefore either chooses to create then or leaves them. AB's god is therefore a murderer that chooses suffering for children.

But the same logic also makes him the healer who chooses recovery for children otherwise you are merely and exclusively having God as the creator or allower of hereditary diseases and that is not how the universe appears to be.

So let's have a look at the charge sheet.

God has created a universe of death, disease and suffering but also recovery and healing.
God created a universe where disease at least is not inevitable where an understanding of the universes laws can lead to cures.
God has given us the will to choose or otherwise to combat diseases according to how much of a bad thing we think disease is.
Alan's God has decided that death and disease are not permanent anyway. If we are going to sling accusations at Alan's God then we should acknowledge the complete profile.

[Alan Burns]

You have both been unable to offer a logically coherent explanation of what this freedom can be, and denied it exists by agreeing to determinism.

We seem to disagree on the source and nature of what determines our conscious actions.

[Nearly Sane]

But the same logic also makes him the healer who chooses recovery for children otherwise you are merely and exclusively having God as the creator or allower of hereditary diseases and that is not how the universe appears to be.

So let's have a look at the charge sheet.

God has created a universe of death, disease and suffering but also recovery and healing.
God created a universe where disease at least is not inevitable where an understanding of the universes laws can lead to cures.
God has given us the will to choose or otherwise to combat diseases according to how much of a bad thing we think disease is.
Alan's God has decided that death and disease are not permanent anyway. If we are going to sling accusations at Alan's God then we should acknowledge the complete profile.

So if I torture and murder you, it"s ok because I was nice to the old lady down the road! Alan's god is a sadistic cunt.

[Shaker]

God has created a universe of death, disease and suffering but also recovery and healing.

I wouldn't have done that. Would you?

God created a universe where disease at least is not inevitable where an understanding of the universes laws can lead to cures.

Which would be unnecessary had not this character "created a universe of death, disease and suffering" to start with.

God has given us the will to choose or otherwise to combat diseases according to how much of a bad thing we think disease is.

Diseases that on your reading this god created.

I feel an Isaiah moment coming on again as per #20610 onwards. That's bound to work out well.