Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

... Can you not see that at any one time we can be conscious of several possible courses of action each with their own reasons.  The conscious willpower of the human soul has the final say in which choice to make, and the reason for that choice is simply a consciously driven preference.  And it is certainly not random.

But we have no choice over what our 'consciously driven preference' should be. We discover our preference and try to act on it.  If I am thirsty I have the 'freedom' to choose from any number of drinks to satisfy that need (note quote marks). I feel free in that merely because I am not aware of any constraints limiting my choice. A feeling is just a feeling. I might end up going for a cold beer, in which case that turned out to be my preference at that moment in time.  But I did not choose to prefer the beer, I just found that I did. Ultimately, we have to admit to the dissolving of the notion of choice, the alternative is a meaningless farrago of infinite regress and contradictory logic in which we have to be able to think thoughts before we thought them or choose to want things that we do not want on some incoherent basis.  Understanding that there is a reason for things, even our 'consciously driven preferences' solves all of that mess.

[torridon]

Your logic seems to be stuck in the robotic action defined, driven and dictated entirely by past events with no form of conscious control or choice.  In your scenario there is no need for conscious awareness because everything is entirely pre defined.

Back to fallacy-land I'm afraid. The above sentence is a non-sequitur and it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding on the nature and role of consciousness. Consciousness did not evolve purely to allow homo sapiens to take complex decisions, although it is involved in that.  It evolved as a means of prioritising multi modal awareness in increasingly complex organisms during the Cambrian when sight and hearing and touch organs were evolving.  Consciousness allows a simplified integrated registration of an organism's internal state on a biological scale of values; this yields a survival advantage in a competitive world where many things are out to eat you.

[Nearly Sane]

Good post. AB is getting a lot of stick from the usual chronically-sarky atheists, but, while my brand of Christianity is different from his, he's not a bad bloke.

Except given your reply to Alan here, was in regards to my posting about Alan's belief in and worship of some form of capricious thug, I wasn't being sarcastic at all. On one level, I agree, Alan is probably helping an old person across the street as we speak, and good naturedly tousling the hair of a much loved grand child (btw that isn't sarcastic either). The issue I was dealing with though is that his beliefs in this case about miracles and his god's action seem morally repugnant, and illogical.


Let's suppose that there is a person that could because they are a great surgeon save a child from dying in agony, but they decide that morning to go and help Alan find his lost contact lens, and then say 'now that I have done that, I don't feel like surgery today' and then went home and the child died in agony? I am sure that Alan would fund that disgusting and probably want action taken against the surgeon, particularly if it was that much loved grandchild with the tousled hair that had just died in agony.


And, before you raise the question of omnipotence here, you would also have to get rid of the idea of omniscience or accept that the death in agony of that child must have been part of 'some vast eternal plan'. If there is a benevelint omniscient god, this must be the best of all possible worlds, so Alan's god not only found his contact lens and allowed the child to die in agony but has planned for that all the way through. Again Alan would be horrified if a human did that,but here suspends that judgement. That seems to me very dangerous an, in addition, a complete denial of any concept of free will, never mind Alan's version with its illogical break between cause and effect that he has never managed to understand on here.

So Alan may be a nice guy irl ,and further he's obviously intelligent but his belief here allows him to approve of actions he would descry from a fellow human, and warps his thinking to accept patent illogicalities that he would throw out normally. That seems to be a type of thinking that should be roundly challenged, and was what I did, with in this case,no sarcasm. Coming as I do from a place where the two positives 'Aye, right' are sarcasm, I use it frequently, but my disgust at the supposed actions of Alan's thug god is not sarcasm

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except given your reply to Alan here, was in regards to my posting about Alan's belief in and worship of some form of capricious thug, I wasn't being sarcastic at all. On one level, I agree, Alan is probably helping an old person across the street as we speak, and good naturedly tousling the hair of a much loved grand child (btw that isn't sarcastic either). The issue I was dealing with though is that his beliefs in this case about miracles and his god's action seem morally repugnant, and illogical.


Let's suppose that there is a person that could because they are a great surgeon save a child from dying in agony, but they decide that morning to go and help Alan find his lost contact lens, and then say 'now that I have done that, I don't feel like surgery today' and then went home and the child died in agony? I am sure that Alan would fund that disgusting and probably want action taken against the surgeon, particularly if it was that much loved grandchild with the tousled hair that had just died in agony.


And, before you raise the question of omnipotence here, you would also have to get rid of the idea of omniscience or accept that the death in agony of that child must have been part of 'some vast eternal plan'. If there is a benevelint omniscient god, this must be the best of all possible worlds, so Alan's god not only found his contact lens and allowed the child to die in agony but has planned for that all the way through. Again Alan would be horrified if a human did that,but here suspends that judgement. That seems to me very dangerous an, in addition, a complete denial of any concept of free will, never mind Alan's version with its illogical break between cause and effect that he has never managed to understand on here.

So Alan may be a nice guy irl ,and further he's obviously intelligent but his belief here allows him to approve of actions he would descry from a fellow human, and warps his thinking to accept patent illogicalities that he would throw out normally. That seems to be a type of thinking that should be roundly challenged, and was what I did, with in this case,no sarcasm. Coming as I do from a place where the two positives 'Aye, right' are sarcasm, I use it frequently, but my disgust at the supposed actions of Alan's thug god is not sarcasm

But God is the great surgeon and probably the great psychiatrist as well. But His modus is to heal people from death and suffering. Why that should be I don't know but that's not to say I will be forever agnostic.

Of course it could be argued that no one is resurrected that suffering is meaningless, that God does not exist. In which case why is the atheist wasting his time over God instead of rectifying the two evils of nature and human evil? Could it be that God is just too Goddam handy.

Vis a vis finding contact lenses Alan's God has convinced Alan that He will be with Alan always and i'm sure Alan believes his dealings with God during periods of suffering will take a different tone from the gentle banter of the quotidien. Therefore I don't understand your view that God is gently reminding someone where they left their contact lens and being totally absent from anyone who is suffering.

The God whom Alan worships does not spare us from the possibility of death and suffering. He did not even spare Himself from that.

[SteveH]

is there a menu of types of Christianity to choose from ?
Er- I'll have that one please


It's either all true or none of it ,that's the only choice you've got

No, it isn't. There are, inter alia:
Evangelical charismatic
Evangelical non-charismatic
Fundamentalist
Anglo-catholic
Broad-church anglican
Conservative Roman Catholic
Liberal Roman Catholic
Charismatic Roman Catholic
Liberal anglican
and
Non-realist
varieties of Christianity - and that's before we get staqrted on the various types of orthodoxy.

[wigginhall]

That point by NS is a humdinger, that a human who neglected a dying baby would be castigated, but if God does it, well, he has his reasons, which are mysterious to behold.   It's strange how normally quite morally upright people abandon this in the face of deity.   It's as if God is amoral. 

[SteveH]

he said, sarcastically ....

Bluntly and a bit rudely, but not sarcastically. A sarcastic reply would have been on the lines of "Oh, what an original, insightful comment! No-one's ever said that before, least of all you!"

[SteveH]

descry

...means "notice, observe". You mean "decry".

[Nearly Sane]

But God is the great surgeon and probably the great psychiatrist as well. But His modus is to heal people from death and suffering. Why that should be I don't know but that's not to say I will be forever agnostic.

Of course it could be argued that no one is resurrected that suffering is meaningless, that God does not exist. In which case why is the atheist wasting his time over God instead of rectifying the two evils of nature and human evil? Could it be that God is just too Goddam handy.

Vis a vis finding contact lenses Alan's God has convinced Alan that He will be with Alan always and i'm sure Alan believes his dealings with God during periods of suffering will take a different tone from the gentle banter of the quotidien. Therefore I don't understand your view that God is gently reminding someone where they left their contact lens and being totally absent from anyone who is suffering.

The God whom Alan worships does not spare us from the possibility of death and suffering. He did not even spare Himself from that.

Apart from the enormous amounts of begging the question throughout this piece, it amounts to you saying that you treat god differently because you tray God differently. No logic, no argument, just a lot if words saying I can't justify my double standards but will continue to hold this illogical position

[Nearly Sane]

...means "notice, observe". You mean "decry".

Thank you, now do you have something relevant to the points being made?

[Alan Burns]

If there is a benevelint omniscient god, this must be the best of all possible worlds,

No - that would be heaven

[SteveH]

I've already made the point about omnipotence perhaps meaning "able to do anything that can be done", which keeps the full meaning of "omni-", contrary to the earlier post by I cannot remember who, who had obviously not read what I wrote. I suggested that matter may be in its very nature intractable stuff which even God can't do what God wants with, hence people (let's abandon the emotive word "children") dying in agony. I don't believe that God answers prayer about lost contact lenses or other relatively trivial things either, at least not in a straightforward way: someone said that prayer changes the person who prays, not the world around them (I think it's someone's signature on here), and it may be that praying about a lost item jogs the memory, helping the prayer to find it.

[Nearly Sane]

No - that would be heaven

except you think this world is how people get to heaven. It is for you a necessary step for god's plan, for the simple reason that it is part of god's plan.  If he is omniscient and benevolent then this must be the best that it can be in order for heaven to be what your god wants.

[Sebastian Toe]

No - that would be heaven

Is that where your soul goes once your body ceases to function entirely?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apart from the enormous amounts of begging the question throughout this piece, it amounts to you saying that you treat god differently because you tray God differently. No logic, no argument, just a lot if words saying I can't justify my double standards but will continue to hold this illogical position

No all I wanted to get over is to a) outline what Alan believes as a Christian. b) outline what you must believe if you are in disagreement namely either God is a monster or he does not exist c) pointing out that if the latter you have some explaining to do about what evil is and what you are doing about it in a world where there is no God.

If there is no God therefore what is evil about evil?

[Alan Burns]

Back to fallacy-land I'm afraid. The above sentence is a non-sequitur and it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding on the nature and role of consciousness. Consciousness did not evolve purely to allow homo sapiens to take complex decisions, although it is involved in that.  It evolved as a means of prioritising multi modal awareness in increasingly complex organisms during the Cambrian when sight and hearing and touch organs were evolving.  Consciousness allows a simplified integrated registration of an organism's internal state on a biological scale of values; this yields a survival advantage in a competitive world where many things are out to eat you.

We will have to agree to differ, Torri.

You can carry on assuming that all your "conscious" choices are not choices but pre determined actions dictated by the physical reactions in your brain.

And I will carry on using my God given freedom to witness to the truth of our spiritual nature which allows us to choose our own destiny.

[Nearly Sane]

I've already made the point about omnipotence perhaps meaning "able to do anything that can be done", which keeps the full meaning of "omni-", contrary to the earlier post by I cannot remember who, who had obviously not read what I wrote. I suggested that matter may be in its very nature intractable stuff which even God can't do what God wants with, hence people (let's abandon the emotive word "children") dying in agony. I don't believe that God answers prayer about lost contact lenses or other relatively trivial things either, at least not in a straightforward way: someone said that prayer changes the person who prays, not the world around them (I think it's someone's signature on here), and it may be that praying about a lost item jogs the memory, helping the prayer to find it.

And I had already replied covering to your earlier post, and to some extent defended it. That said it's essentially irrelevant to my latest post mentioning the omnis since I specifically included your position.

[Shaker]

Of course it could be argued that no one is resurrected that suffering is meaningless, that God does not exist.

Yup.

In which case why is the atheist wasting his time over God

Because when it comes to solving or trying to solve the ills of the world, clear, evidence-based thinking is better than the masturbatory illogic favoured by supernaturalists. It sees more, it sees further, it does more, it goes further. I give you torridon (quoted without his knowledge but, I hope, with his approval) just now over on General:

I once worked for a Laos based NGO supporting victims of disability prejudice.

And what was the underlying reason for such prejudice ?  Our field workers reported the same story over and over again - it was a belief in karma,  disabled and disfigured individuals were targetted for hate because of the widespread belief that they were being punished for, and deserved being punished for, their immorality in a previous life.

Irrational beliefs always come with costs attached. Irrational beliefs always cause harm.

*

Vis a vis finding contact lenses Alan's God has convinced Alan that He will be with Alan always

No. I think you'll find that Alan has convinced Alan of that.

[Nearly Sane]

No all I wanted to get over is to a) outline what Alan believes as a Christian. b) outline what you must believe if you are in disagreement namely either God is a monster or he does not exist c) pointing out that if the latter you have some explaining to do about what evil is and what you are doing about it in a world where there is no God.

If there is no God therefore what is evil about evil?

It's precisely what Alan believes that I am dealing with. I'm pointing out the issues with what he believed but stating that his god has convinced him of finding his contact lens is begging the question unless you are accepting the possibility that Alan's god may be simply Alan's mind and nothing external.


b) is a false dichotomy. As covered above I'm dealing with the logical implications of Alan's position . That doesn't limit my options on possibilities beyond that.


C) even leaving aside your false dichotomy, is a non sequitur and a begging the question. First of all you assume evil is an external thing, and then somehow say that I have some responsibility for explaining something I have not stated. Worse your final question assumes that using the word god is somehow explanatory here when your earlier post coveted why you have no explanation of such things even with your god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's precisely what Alan believes that I am dealing with. I'm pointing out the issues with what he believed but stating that his god has convinced him of finding his contact lens is begging the question unless you are accepting the possibility that Alan's god may be simply Alan's mind and nothing external.


b) is a false dichotomy. As covered above I'm dealing with the logical implications of Alan's position . That doesn't limit my options on possibilities beyond that.


C) even leaving aside your false dichotomy, is a non sequitur and a begging the question. First of all you assume evil is an external thing, and then somehow say that I have some responsibility for explaining something I have not stated. Worse your final question assumes that using the word god is somehow explanatory here when your earlier post coveted why you have no explanation of such things even with your god.

B) God is or God isn't is not a false dichotomy unless I meant God is a fictional monster which I can assure you I didn't.

[Walter]

No, it isn't. There are, inter alia:
Evangelical charismatic
Evangelical non-charismatic
Fundamentalist
Anglo-catholic
Broad-church anglican
Conservative Roman Catholic
Liberal Roman Catholic
Charismatic Roman Catholic
Liberal anglican
and
Non-realist
varieties of Christianity - and that's before we get staqrted on the various types of orthodoxy.

you are just proving my point !

[Nearly Sane]

B) God is or God isn't is not a false dichotomy unless I meant God is a fictional monster which I can assure you I didn't.

. Except that isn't what you wrote. To quote you  'b) outline what you must believe if you are in disagreement namely either God is a monster or he does not exist'

Further, what I believe is not limited to something exists off it doesn't. I can and do take the pisitii. That I have no belief in something without stating that I believe it does not exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. Except that isn't what you wrote. To quote you  'b) outline what you must believe if you are in disagreement namely either God is a monster or he does not exist'

Yes....which part of ''God is....'' is not registering?

[Nearly Sane]

Yes....which part of ''God is....'' is not registering?

Let's run through this with another  example based on what you originally wrote, 'either next door's cat is a monster or it does not exist'. That's clearly a false dichotomy. So your b)was false and that's leaving aside that you added on the bit about belief which then means 'you either believe next
 door's cat is monster, or you believe next door's cat does not exist'

[torridon]

We will have to agree to differ, Torri.

You can carry on assuming that all your "conscious" choices are not choices but pre determined actions dictated by the physical reactions in your brain.

And I will carry on using my God given freedom to witness to the truth of our spiritual nature which allows us to choose our own destiny.

I accept your rationale is widespread, being the common, intuitive one. For me though it is very superficial, lacking relevant insights from advances in our knowledge about how life works.  This is not for everyone, there is no happy-ever-after story ending for a hard determinist, but I'd sooner face up to that reality than hide from it.