Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My sticking point is logic. If god is both omniscient and omnipotent and it created everything, then it either, at that instant, fixed the entire history of everything, including all human choices, or it introduced some genuinely random element. In either case, it is fully responsible for everything.

This was discussed at great length earlier in this thread - logically, every event is either produced deterministically or it has some element of true randomness. There is no logical 'get out' for 'free will'.

From a human point of view, such a perspective is pretty much useless and, for all practical purposes, we can assume we have 'free will' in the compatibilist sense - but an omniscient, omnipotent creator would unavoidably be responsible for everything.

Even if we were to ignore that glaring logical hole in (most versions of) Christianity - the
notion that all humans are "sinners" implies a 100% failure rate - that couldn't be a genuine human choice, it would have to be a design flaw.

Faulty logic is on your side in the form of the unsupported assumptions. Including God cannot possibly allow the creation of beings which could be in relation with him.
Your model also doesn't include God's forgiveness. So there isn't after all the 100% failure rate you have stated.
To call what God has done as a design fault is merely a choice which assumes Man isn't deliberate. There is no warrant for your choice here.

There is nothing which affects the choice of God or not God except the person confronting that choice. There is no precedence or equivalent of that choice.

[Stranger]

Faulty logic is on your side in the form of the unsupported assumptions.

Such as?

Including God cannot possibly allow the creation of beings which could be in relation with him.

This seems to have nothing to do with anything I said.

Your model also doesn't include God's forgiveness. So there isn't after all the 100% failure rate you have stated.

If everybody needs forgiveness, that is still 100% failure. If it was a genuine choice, then some people would make the right one and not need forgiveness.

To call what God has done as a design fault is merely a choice which assumes Man isn't deliberate. There is no warrant for your choice here.


There is nothing which affects the choice of God or not God except the person confronting that choice. There is no precedence or equivalent of that choice.

This doesn't appear to be in English.

[floo]

Death is a feature of the universe as a part of the general change in material and energy, in fact I doubt death can be considered a proper scientific term.
Within a universe of continual recreation then resurrection could be looked upon as a bonus.

How does entertainment come in?

If god is responsible for creation, it must have known how humans would suffer, and did nothing to stop it, therefore it is a reasonable suggestion it gets some entertainment value out of it.

[Alan Burns]

So, apart from the personal incredulity and the prejudicial language, any progress on the question you keep running away from?

How about just stopping for a moment and thinking about how we make decisions and exert control?

What does the stopping?
What drives the thinking?

We gather and evaluate all the information, we contemplate our options,

What does the gathering?
What does the contemplation?

we bring to bear our knowledge and experience,

What is it that brings things to bear?

we consult our feelings, values, preferences, and beliefs.

What consults?

Finally, based on all that (or not, if we decide to act impulsively) we make a choice and act.

What makes the choice?
What initiates the action?

Nothing in the that is in any way incompatible with us being deterministic beings (the impulse my be (pseudo)-random). What exactly is the magic non-material part of us supposed to bring to the party?[/i]

Nothing in the above scenario can be deemed physically deterministic, because it is all driven by the power of our conscious awareness to wilfully interact - not just react!

[Shaker]

Oh shit. He's discovered red text.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh shit. He's discovered red text.

If he combines that with capitals, he could take  over the world.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If god is responsible for creation, it must have known how humans would suffer, and did nothing to stop it, therefore it is a reasonable suggestion it gets some entertainment value out of it.

No, there is a school of thought in which suffering is formative. Also Jesus is God incarnate as a human who takes on the sins of the world.

No necessity then for suffering to be entertainment.

[Alan Burns]

If he combines that with capitals, he could take  over the world.

But what does it profit a man to take over the whole world, but suffer the loss of his soul?

[Stranger]

Nothing in the above scenario can be deemed deterministic, because it is all driven by the power of our conscious awareness to wilfully interact - not just react!

Wow - flat contradiction and assertion, without the slightest hint of even pretending to think about the issue. Somewhat ironic, that.

As discussed before, the only alternative to determinism is randomness - you've just asserted that conscious awareness and wilful interaction are random.

You said before that non-human animals do not have the magic non-material bit. Do animals not stop sometimes, gather information or act according to their experience? Are you really content with your childish contradiction and foot stamping assertion?

[Gordon]

But what does it profit a man to take over the whole world, but suffer the loss of his soul?

I don't have a soul, just like I don't have wings or gills, so I don't give a fuck what your holy book says about souls.

[Nearly Sane]

But what does it profit a man to take over the whole world, but suffer the loss of his soul?

And moving text now, the engines cannae take it. 

[Alan Burns]

As discussed before, the only alternative to determinism is randomness - you've just asserted that conscious awareness and wilful interaction are random.

How many times to I have to say this -
The alternative to physical determinism is spiritually determined, which releases us from the shackles of the unavoidable physically determined cause and effect scenario, allowing the power of our God given soul to wilfully interact with this world.  I have never asserted that that conscious awareness and wilful interaction is random.  It is driven by our conscious will, not by the unavoidable consequences to previous physical events.

[Maeght]

How many times to I have to say this -
The alternative to physical determinism is spiritually determined, which releases us from the shackles of the unavoidable physically determined cause and effect scenario, allowing the power of our God given soul to wilfully interact with this world.  I have never asserted that that conscious awareness and wilful interaction is random.  It is driven by our conscious will, not by the unavoidable consequences to previous physical events.

Is the spiritual determination random or predetermined?

[Shaker]

How many times to I have to say this -

Just the once with evidence rather than assertion of personal belief will suffice.

[Stranger]

How many times to I have to say this -
The alternative to physical determinism is spiritually determined, which releases us from the shackles of the unavoidable physically determined cause and effect scenario, allowing the power of our God given soul to wilfully interact with this world.  I have never asserted that that conscious awareness and wilful interaction is random.  It is driven by our conscious will, not by the unavoidable consequences to previous physical events.

Alan (have you really forgotten?), the determinism- randomness choice has nothing at all to do with it being physical - it's a logical alternative that has to apply just as much in magic-spiritual land as the physical universe.

Remember:-

I admit that I do not know how conscious awareness and free will can work in the spiritual sense, but it does fit well with the religious concept of human beings having a spiritual soul, which is what I base my beliefs on.

[Alan Burns]

You said before that non-human animals do not have the magic non-material bit. Do animals not stop sometimes, gather information or act according to their experience? Are you really content with your childish contradiction and foot stamping assertion?

I have no problem with animals being driven by their physically determined reactions to previous events, dictated by their programmed instincts and learnt experiences.

But we are not animals - our human conscious awareness gives us the power to wilfully override such pre determined behaviour patterns if we so wish.

[Shaker]

But we are not animals

1. Point.

2. Laugh.

[floo]

No, there is a school of thought in which suffering is formative. Also Jesus is God incarnate as a human who takes on the sins of the world.

No necessity then for suffering to be entertainment.

An assertion, NO evidence.

[floo]

How many times to I have to say this -
The alternative to physical determinism is spiritually determined, which releases us from the shackles of the unavoidable physically determined cause and effect scenario, allowing the power of our God given soul to wilfully interact with this world.  I have never asserted that that conscious awareness and wilful interaction is random.  It is driven by our conscious will, not by the unavoidable consequences to previous physical events.

You can say it a million times +, but it still is only a belief on your part with no evidence to back it up!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As discussed before, the only alternative to determinism is randomness

I must have missed that. Why didn't I read about the determinism/free will having been finally settled on the religionethics forum. Is this a real event or is it just a majority vote by the Posse.
In many ways the Religionethics forum is a bit singular don't you know?

[Stranger]

You said before that non-human animals do not have the magic non-material bit. Do animals not stop sometimes, gather information or act according to their experience? Are you really content with your childish contradiction and foot stamping assertion?

I have no problem with animals being driven by their physically determined reactions to previous events, dictated by their programmed instincts and learnt experiences.

The point is that it totally undermines your red text dismissal of my question. Clearly you think at least some of the steps can be done without the magic non-material bit.

My question is which part of it can't, in principle, happen in a deterministic way?

[Alan Burns]

Alan (have you really forgotten?), the determinism- randomness choice has nothing at all to do with it being physical - it's a logical alternative that has to apply just as much in magic-spiritual land as the physical universe.

You do not seem to understand the power of your own God given freedom to wilfully interact with this world and not just ride on the waves of entirely pre determined reactions to physical events.  The evidence is there in your own ability to wilfully respond to my posts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An assertion, NO evidence.

It is a statement in response to within your own general assertion that God allows suffering for his own entertainment.

[Nearly Sane]

I must have missed that. Why didn't I read about the determinism/free will having been finally settled on the religionethics forum. Is this a real event or is it just a majority vote by the Posse.
In many ways the Religionethics forum is a bit singular don't you know?

If you have an alternative, and, as Stranger pointed out AB openly admits he doesn't, care to share?

[Nearly Sane]

You do not seem to understand the power of your own God given freedom to wilfully interact with this world and not just ride on the waves of entirely pre determined reactions to physical events.  The evidence is there in your own ability to wilfully respond to my posts.

But how does will happen, if not determined or random, is the question.