Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I fully appreciate and understand the detailed and sincerely compiled replies I get, but after discovering God in my life and accepting Jesus as my saviour, there is nothing on this earth that could possibly take away my faith in God.

Which is an admission of irrationality.

I cannot understand how people can put their trust and faith in nothing but the material entities we perceive on this earth.

Actually it's about using evidence and reasoning rather than baseless superstition.

There is far more to human life than the predetermined behaviour of material reactions can ever generate.

Such a shame you have been completely unable to back up this assertion with any evidence or reasoning.

It is not an easy task to witness to my faith...

I suggest it would get a great deal easier if you started to honestly engage with the answers your are getting to the 'arguments' you are trying to make. You obviously don't understand logical reasoning, yet you keep on claiming to have sound logic - why not educate yourself in the subject? You continually misrepresent or ignore the answers you do get and just repeat the same script over and over again, leaving everybody with the impression that your faith has compromised both your ability to reason and your honesty.

I can't imagine in what bizarre world you would think making such an impression was "witnessing".

[Stranger]

You are just excusing yourself from responsibility.
Sin is against God.

If the mere logic of the situation didn't already rule out any notion of "free will" with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then the fact that everybody (according most flavours of Christianity anyway) is considered to be a sinner, certainly would rule it out in that regard. A 100% failure rate is not a choice, it's a design flaw.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the mere logic of the situation didn't already rule out any notion of "free will" with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then the fact that everybody (according most flavours of Christianity anyway) is considered to be a sinner, certainly would rule it out in that regard. A 100% failure rate is not a choice, it's a design flaw.

Design of what?

It’s quite simple. Since God is greater than anything there is nothing that determines our response to God, not nature, not design, nothing. When we go naturalistic we have chosen for non deterministic reasons to ignore God and subject totally to deterministic forces. Since these forces cannot stop us returning to God that choice is ours. The problem then is not design but our decision for or against God.

[Stranger]

Design of what?

Humans or the standard they are being held up to.

It’s quite simple. Since God is greater than anything there is nothing that determines our response to God, not nature, not design, nothing.

Then it's entirely random. Even if it made sense, how does that help? How do you respond to something that doesn't appear to be there in the first place?

When we go naturalistic we have chosen for non deterministic reasons to ignore God and subject totally to deterministic forces.

If it's non-deterministic, then it's (to some extent) random. And again this "go naturalistic" makes no sense when there is no obvious god(s) to respond to or ignore - just endless different and contradictory (apparent) superstitions.

Since these forces cannot stop us returning to God that choice is ours. The problem then is not design but our decision for or against God.

As I said, free will is nonsense with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator anyway for purely logical reasons, and none of this changes the fact that (according to Christianity in most forms), everybody needs forgiveness, which makes a mockery of any notion that they had a free choice as to whether to sin or not. Created sick and commanded to be well...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Humans or the standard they are being held up to.

Then it's entirely random. Even if it made sense, how does that help? How do you respond to something that doesn't appear to be there in the first place?

If it's non-deterministic, then it's (to some extent) random. And again this "go naturalistic" makes no sense when there is no obvious god(s) to respond to or ignore - just endless different and contradictory (apparent) superstitions.

As I said, free will is nonsense with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator anyway for purely logical reasons, and none of this changes the fact that (according to Christianity in most forms), everybody needs forgiveness, which makes a mockery of any notion that they had a free choice as to whether to sin or not. Created sick and commanded to be well...

Yet another amelioration of the word evil or immorality when it comes to oneself I.e. sick.
Secondly there is no sickness or evil that cancels the way to God. The only block is your own choice.
You are not commanded to make yourself well you are invited to turn to God to be made well. The sick need a doctor, the immune system agains evil having been self compromised.
Which some people do and atheists who usually admit they haven’t or it’s impossible.

Random is an atheist substitute for God in this context. Based on a misunderstanding of God

[Stranger]

Yet another amelioration of the word evil or immorality when it comes to oneself I.e. sick.

It seems an appropriate given what Christians teach.

Secondly there is no sickness or evil that cancels the way to God. The only block is your own choice.

The idea that I have a free choice in a universe created by an omnipotent, omniscient god is logically incoherent.

You are not commanded to make yourself well you are invited to turn to God to be made well. The sick need a doctor, the immune system agains evil having been self compromised.

Unless it's made compromised (a design flaw), then even if free will weren't impossible, it couldn't be a choice if everybody's system ends up compromised - again we are back to a design flaw in humans or an inappropriate test.

Random is an atheist substitute for God in this context. Based on a misunderstanding of God

Drivel.

[Outrider]

You are just excusing yourself from responsibility. Sin is against God.

Given that at least some of the rules apportioned to this 'God' character are morally indefensible, I don't necessarily see 'sin' as being a bad thing.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given that at least some of the rules apportioned to this 'God' character are morally indefensible, I don't necessarily see 'sin' as being a bad thing.

O.

Then I am heartened at your conversion to moral realism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems an appropriate given what Christians teach.

The idea that I have a free choice in a universe created by an omnipotent, omniscient god is logically incoherent.

Unless it's made compromised (a design flaw), then even if free will weren't impossible, it couldn't be a choice if everybody's system ends up compromised - again we are back to a design flaw in humans or an inappropriate test.

Drivel.

Which part of nothing in nature can determine your decision for or against God is causing you problems.

If it were a design flaw how come people make the decision for God?

All you are doing is arguing design flaw, then when it is pointed out to you that no design flaw is or can be involved or determine outcome, you then argue there wasn’t design in the first place.

Goal post shifting if ever there was.

[Roses]

You are just excusing yourself from responsibility.
Sin is against God. Since there is nothing like God there is no object, experience or cause that can prepare or determine anything or anybody for a positive or negative interaction with God.

Your posts don't do god any favours, so must be sinful.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your posts don't do god any favours, so must be sinful.

What type of posts do in your opinion do God favours?

[Stranger]

Which part of nothing in nature can determine your decision for or against God is causing you problems.

It's got nothing to do with nature - as I (and others) have been explaing to Alan, either are minds are deterministic systems or they aren't, and therefore involve randomness. Neither provide for any sort of "free will" with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient, creator.

If it were a design flaw how come people make the decision for God?

The decision requires asking for forgiveness - if it weren't a flaw, if people had a genuine choice not to "sin" in the first place, there would be at least some people who wouldn't need forgiveness.

[torridon]

A spiritual entity such as the human soul would not be subject to the same time dependent cause and effect events, but but is demonstrably able to consciously invoke events determined by its own power of conscious will to interact with this material world.

How could being free of time make any sense when there are choices to be made ?  You have to be aware of something before you can choose to respond to it.  That implies a time dimension.

What would be the nature of a soul's will if it is not derived from anything in the 'material world'.  You are just trying to disguise that a soul's own will in this context would be a random thing, having no derivation, having no inherent preferences.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's got nothing to do with nature - as I (and others) have been explaing to Alan, either are minds are [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system]deterministic systems][/url]

It's got nothing to do with nature - as I (and others) have been explaing to Alan, either are minds are [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system]deterministic systems[/url] or they aren't, and therefore involve randomness. Neither provide for any sort of "free will" with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient, creator.

The decision requires asking for forgiveness - if it weren't a flaw, if people had a genuine choice not to "sin" in the first place, there would be at least some people who wouldn't need forgiveness.

There is nothing though, in nature, that can determine a decision for or against God. God is not in that system. It is the only circumstance in which we have free will and total responsibility for our choice.


What is random about this choice?

[Stranger]

There is nothing though, in nature, that can determine a decision for or against God. God is not in that system. It is the only circumstance in which we have free will and total responsibility for our choice.

As I explained - there is no such as "free will" in this context - the words are devoid of meaning. The "system" I was referring to is the human mind. If there is nothing in our minds that determines it, then it can't be our responsibility, can it?

If there is nothing random in our minds, that makes then a deterministic systems, which means that an omnipotent, omniscient creator would  have effectively chosen our entire nature nurture and experiences, and hence all our choices.

Even if we ignore all that, we still get back to the fact that Christians claim that we all need forgiveness which leads us to the same conclusion, that there was never any genuine choice to not sin in the first place.

What is random about this choice?

If nothing determines how an outcome is arrived at, then it must be random.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I explained - there is no such as "free will" in this context - the words are devoid of meaning. The "system" I was referring to is the human mind. If there is nothing in our minds that determines it, then it can't be our responsibility, can it?

If there is nothing random in our minds, that makes then a deterministic systems, which means that an omnipotent, omniscient creator would  have effectively chosen our entire nature nurture and experiences, and hence all our choices.

Even if we ignore all that, we still get back to the fact that Christians claim that we all need forgiveness which leads us to the same conclusion, that there was never any genuine choice to not sin in the first place.

If nothing determines how an outcome is arrived at, then it must be random.

If there is something in our minds which determine our choice for God or against.....and i’m Talking relationship with and commitment to as opposed to belief in then what is in our minds which determines cannot be previous experience of the natural or natural process, nor natural sense since we would all be subject to the same response but mainly because God is not naturalistic in the common sense. This then is only a problem for and from a naturalistic point of view.

There is then in terms of sin against God the opportunity to turn to him and Sins therefore are irrelevant to the question of should I turn to God. There is no wrong doing that prevents this. Only ourselves.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am sad that you do not like my posts.

Then make Susan less sad by not being so evasive.

I fully appreciate and understand the detailed and sincerely compiled replies I get,…

Then why not for once engage with them openly and honestly rather than ignore them, misrepresent them, collapse into wrongheadedness etc?

…but after discovering God in my life and accepting Jesus as my saviour,…

No, so far at least all you’ve shown is that you've “discovered” beliefs about these things, entirely unsupported by the critical thinking and sound logic you claimed to have but can never produce.

… there is nothing on this earth that could possibly take away my faith in God.

So why bother claiming critical thinking and sound logic when you have no interest in these things? Critical thinking and sound logic have baked in the premise that, if more cogent thinking and logic were ever to arrive then the belief would change. You’ve just told us though that your mind is forever closed no matter what arguments may undo you. 

I cannot understand how people can put their trust and faith in nothing but the material entities we perceive on this earth.

Why not given how often it’s been explained to you? People put their “faith and trust” in these thing because, so far at least, no-one’s come up with means to investigate claims of the non-material.

There is far more to human life than the predetermined behaviour of material reactions can ever generate.

Argument by assertion.

My Christian faith has nothing to do with cotton wool.

Epistemically at least I agree - it’s more like a steel safe into which you’ve you’ve locked yourself.

It involves a battle with the evil which dominates this world.

Infantile superstition.
 

It is not an easy task to witness to my faith,…

Yes it is – all you do is repeat over and over again the same mindless mantras while never, ever addressing the problem they give you.

…because the ever increasing secular society is dominated by the scales of deception conceived by the evil powers which hide the truth.

WHOOOO…LOOK OUT, E’S BE'IND YER!

We are all spiritual beings with the power to choose our destiny.

Mindless assertions.

I hope and pray that you and all on this forum will perceive the truth, for the truth really does set us free.

Then why do you have so little interest in finding out what “the truth” might be? If you really were so sure of your beliefs and really wanted other people to believe them too, wouldn’t a basic first step be to try at least to engage with the arguments that undo you?

Here for example I asked you a while ago whether or not you could support your claim to justify you beliefs with critical thinking:

“So finally and once and for all, answer the question: do you or do you not have an argument (ie critical thinking in the form of logic or evidence) that would justify your assertion that a materialistic explanation for consciousness is “impossible”?

To save you the trouble of your usual evasions:

1. Repeated unqualified assertion of the claim is not an argument for your contention.

2. Your personal incredulity about the materialistic explanation for consciousness is not an argument for your contention.

3. Telling us that laptops aren’t self-aware is not an argument for your contention.

4. Calling the experience of decision-making “the" reality of the process of decision-making is not an argument for your contention.

5. Demanding from others a complete explanation for the materialistic model of consciousness and then complaining that it’s incomplete is not an argument for your contention.

6. Complaining that you don’t like the implications if consciousness is materialistic (the argumentum ad consequentiam) is not an argument for your contention.

If after all this time you still think you have an argument that justifies your assertion, tell us what it is.

If you now concede that you don’t have an argument that justifies your assertion, just say so and withdraw it.”

There’s still no reply, and there’s still no sign of you having critical thinking to justify your beliefs.

Why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

“Once we assume a creator and a plan, it makes humans objects of a cruel experiment whereby we are created to be sick and commanded to be well.”

― Christopher Hitchens

[Walt Zingmatilder]

“Once we assume a creator and a plan, it makes humans objects of a cruel experiment whereby we are created to be sick and commanded to be well.”

― Christopher Hitchens

Misrepresentation of the gospel. Thank you for flagging up Mew Atheism’s stealth religion status as exemplified by its sanctimonious use of it’s scripture.

[Stranger]

If there is something in our minds which determine our choice for God or against.....and i’m Talking relationship with and commitment to as opposed to belief in then what is in our minds which determines cannot be previous experience of the natural or natural process, nor natural sense since we would all be subject to the same response but mainly because God is not naturalistic in the common sense. This then is only a problem for and from a naturalistic point of view.

There is then in terms of sin against God the opportunity to turn to him and Sins therefore are irrelevant to the question of should I turn to God. There is no wrong doing that prevents this. Only ourselves.

Gobbledygook. It's got nothing to do with naturalism, my mind is something that changes its state over time and is therefore either a deterministic system or it isn't (and hence involves randomness) - see #40759. Neither option can make "free will" make the slightest bit of sense with regard to an omnipotent and omniscient creator.

And none of that actually addresses the other point that if there was such a thing as a free choice not to sin and need forgiveness, then some people would take it. Either way, your god would be unjust and unfair - even before we get the silly and cruel game of hide and seek it seems to want to play.

A just and fair, omnipotent and omniscient god, with an important message for our well-being, is simply inconsistent with the reality we observe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Misrepresentation of the gospel. Thank you for flagging up Mew Atheism’s stealth religion status as exemplified by its sanctimonious use of it’s scripture.

Now try reading the first eight words of the quote again. It's pretty mainstream Christian orthodoxy I'd have thought to claim a god with a plan is it not?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gobbledygook. It's got nothing to do with naturalism, my mind is something that changes its state over time and is therefore either a deterministic system or it isn't (and hence involves randomness) - see #40759. Neither option can make "free will" make the slightest bit of sense with regard to an omnipotent and omniscient creator.

And none of that actually addresses the other point that if there was such a thing as a free choice not to sin and need forgiveness, then some people would take it. Either way, your god would be unjust and unfair - even before we get the silly and cruel game of hide and seek it seems to want to play.

A just and fair, omnipotent and omniscient god, with an important message for our well-being, is simply inconsistent with the reality we observe.

I don’t believe I’ve ruled out anything in the mind which determines your decision for or against  Commitment to God.
What I am saying and waiting for the challenge is that whatever it is which determines the choice for or against god it is not natural, since there is no natural experience or process which prepares us for this. The problem is therefore not with design as you keep insisting. Since there is only yourself stopping you......not any external determiner.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

Now try reading the first eight words of the quote again. It's pretty mainstream Christian orthodoxy I'd have thought to claim a god with a plan is it not?

No it isn’t. You really have been sucked moony like into New atheism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

No it isn’t. You really have been sucked moony like into New atheism.

And there was me thinking your god does have a plan, what with the Bible saying:

“And He made known to us the mystery of His will . . . according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Christ, In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will" (Ephesians 1:9.11)

Furthermore there was me thinking that this plan was a good one too, what with the Bible also saying:

“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will" (Romans 12:2)

Still, if you think your “holy” texts are wrong about perhaps you’d better tell us your source for this superior insight into your god’s thinking. Has Bible v2 been uploaded overnight or something?   

[Outrider]

Then I am heartened at your conversion to moral realism.

I've not said whether I think they're not necessarily bad in a morally realist or morally relativist framework - just that I don't presume that something being sinful necessarily makes it a bad thing.

O.