Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

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.

You still seem to be missing both the points completely. Firstly, if my mind is a deterministic system, then I cannot make a choice that hasn't effectively been made for me if there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator. If it isn't a deterministic system, then it involves some randomness. In neither case is it sensible for said creator to hold me responsible. The whole idea of "free will" is nonsensical if there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

Secondly, even if we just ignore all that logic, the fact that, according to Christianity, everybody is a "sinner" and needs to be forgiven, also tells us that there is no genuine choice available to us, because, otherwise, at least some people would make it.

[ekim]

The whole idea of "free will" is nonsensical if there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

Not only that, to constantly pray 'Thy Will be done' acknowledges a desire to switch from self determined choices to God determined choices.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Not only that, to constantly pray 'Thy Will be done' acknowledges a desire to switch from self determined choices to God determined choices.

But, but…that well-known theologian Vlad just told us that thinking there to be a god with a plan isn’t orthodox Christianity (even though the Bible says precisely the opposite), so how could anyone know what “God’s will” is if it’s not in a plan? Does “He” just make it up as He goes along and then text it to his believers in real time perhaps?

I think we should be told! 

[ekim]

ekim,

But, but…that well-known theologian Vlad just told us that thinking there to be a god with a plan isn’t orthodox Christianity (even though the Bible says precisely the opposite), so how could anyone know what “God’s will” is if it’s not in a plan? Does “He” just make it up as He goes along and then text it to his believers in real time perhaps?

I think we should be told! 

... or switch to the Hindu concept of Leela which is not so much' planned Divine Will' as 'divine creative play' by Brahman........  let's see what happens if ....... wow, a black hole. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You still seem to be missing both the points completely. Firstly, if my mind is a deterministic system, then I cannot make a choice that hasn't effectively been made for me if there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator. If it isn't a deterministic system, then it involves some randomness. In neither case is it sensible for said creator to hold me responsible. The whole idea of "free will" is nonsensical if there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

Secondly, even if we just ignore all that logic, the fact that, according to Christianity, everybody is a "sinner" and needs to be forgiven, also tells us that there is no genuine choice available to us, because, otherwise, at least some people would make it.

I am not missing any point.  Firstly you aren’t transparent about what you understand as a deterministic system.

Is it something that is externally controlled or is control or the determining factor in this thing you call mind?
Secondly if God is omnipotent he can grant you agency in this respect. There is nothing external involved since nothing is the equivalent of God therefore nothing can help you out except your own mind which is what determines your decision...or something within it. Nature can grant you the decision making apparatus but has no say over your decision. Nowhere then is it necessary to invoke randomness nor dispense with determinism both terms not specifically terms in logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

There is no actual good and bad in a moral irrealistic framework.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

There is no actual good and bad in a moral irrealistic framework.

There is no actual good and bad art in an aesthetic irrealistic framework...

...oh wait

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ekim,

But, but…that well-known theologian Vlad just told us that thinking there to be a god with a plan isn’t orthodox Christianity (even though the Bible says precisely the opposite), so how could anyone know what “God’s will” is if it’s not in a plan? Does “He” just make it up as He goes along and then text it to his believers in real time perhaps?

I think we should be told! 

Hillside, I’m what they call in Leprechology, a full quoter.....not one of those who give a long Hitchens quote including the blow, the focus on a little bit of the quote. Hitchens full quote is a misrepresentation. Besides is it actually an atheist argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

There is no actual good and bad art in an aesthetic irrealistic framework...

...oh wait

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Hillside, I’m what they call in Leprechology, a full quoter.....not one of those who give a long Hitchens quote including the blow, the focus on a little bit of the quote. Hitchens full quote is a misrepresentation. Besides is it actually an atheist argument?

Yet more dishonesty. The quote I gave in full is: “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.” (Reply 41667)

In Reply 41668 you said this was: “Misrepresentation of the gospel…”

In Reply 41670 I said: “…It's pretty mainstream Christian orthodoxy I'd have thought to claim a god with a plan is it not?”

In Reply 41674 you said: “No it isn’t…” 

In Reply 41673 I showed you that it’s not “misrepresentation of the gospel…” at all. Rather it’s unambiguously stated in the Bible as follows:

“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)…”

Rather than deal with your theological illiteracy you've now sidestepped your mistake with typical evasiveness. In other words, your problem isn’t only your pathological dishonesty it’s also that you’re fucking useless at it.

So now we’ve established beyond doubt that your supposedly “holy” texts claim a god with a plan, what is it in the Hitchens’ quote you think to be wrong exactly?

PS Given your notoriety here for quote doctoring to suit your ends, claiming now to be “…a full quoter” is beyond laughable.     

[Outrider]

There is no actual good and bad in a moral irrealistic framework.

There is, it's just good or bad relative to the cultural norms of the time.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is, it's just good or bad relative to the cultural norms of the time.

O.

Can you show me a cultural norm?

[Nearly Sane]

Can you show me a cultural norm?

Can you show me real morality?

[Stranger]

I am not missing any point.  Firstly you aren’t transparent about what you understand as a deterministic system.

You obviously are still missing the points and I was transparent about it - looks more like you were too lazy to follow the links I gave to the wiki article in #41661 and to my own explanation in #41669.

Here they are again: Deterministic system, and #40759.

Just in case you're still confused, if a mind is a deterministic system then everything it does is a direct result of its nature (initial state), nurture, and experiences right up to the moment of choice (and you can include supernatural aspects to all of those if you want, this is not about the physical world).

To look at it another way you can use a thought experiment and imagine rewinding time to the point of a choice and asking if it was possible that you could have chosen differently. If not, your mind would be a deterministic system, if you could, then it wouldn't be.

The thing is that something that isn't a deterministic system necessarily involves randomness (that's how wiki defines it). In both the above cases we we have included every single thing that could possibly directly affect a choice, (this is especially obvious in the thought experiment since everything must be exactly the same), so any additional "freedom" can only be random.

Obviously it's way beyond human abilities to predict how people will behave (and they may well be chaotic, in the mathematical sense) but it would be clear as day to an omnipotent, omniscient, creator, who would have effectively chosen everybody's whole nature, nurture, and experience at the act of creation, unless it introduced genuine randomness. In neither case can we have direct responsibility from the point of view of this type of god.

You've also totally ignored the second point, that even if we think that this god is the kind that can do the logically impossible (decorate its heaven with square circles and so on) and so manages to give us the self-contradictory notion of "free will" required - we still have to conclude that it can't be a genuine free choice not to sin and need forgiveness because there is a 100% failure rate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Can you show me real morality?

This kind of thing perhaps?:

"See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." (Isaiah 13:9–16 NIV)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you show me real morality?

I’d have trouble, but not as much trouble as a moral irrealist would have seeing it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

This kind of thing perhaps?:

"See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." (Isaiah 13:9–16 NIV)

I’m heartened by your conversion to moral realism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

I’m heartened by your conversion to moral realism.

So you think that smashing babies against rocks and raping wives is "actual" morality then, what with it being written in a book?

No thanks.

PS Any news on your most recent howler re a god with a plan, or is that yet another mess you'll just walk away from?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You obviously are still missing the points and I was transparent about it - looks more like you were too lazy to follow the links I gave to the wiki article in #41661 and to my own explanation in #41669.

Here they are again: Deterministic system, and #40759.

Just in case you're still confused, if a mind is a deterministic system then everything it does is a direct result of its nature (initial state), nurture, and experiences right up to the moment of choice (and you can include supernatural aspects to all of those if you want, this is not about the physical world).

To look at it another way you can use a thought experiment and imagine rewinding time to the point of a choice and asking if it was possible that you could have chosen differently. If not, your mind would be a deterministic system, if you could, then it wouldn't be.

The thing is that something that isn't a deterministic system necessarily involves randomness (that's how wiki defines it). In both the above cases we we have included every single thing that could possibly directly affect a choice, (this is especially obvious in the thought experiment since everything must be exactly the same), so any additional "freedom" can only be random.

Obviously it's way beyond human abilities to predict how people will behave (and they may well be chaotic, in the mathematical sense) but it would be clear as day to an omnipotent, omniscient, creator, who would have effectively chosen everybody's whole nature, nurture, and experience at the act of creation, unless it introduced genuine randomness. In neither case can we have direct responsibility from the point of view of this type of god.

You've also totally ignored the second point, that even if we think that this god is the kind that can do the logically impossible (decorate its heaven with square circles and so on) and so manages to give us the self-contradictory notion of "free will" required - we still have to conclude that it can't be a genuine free choice not to sin and need forgiveness because there is a 100% failure rate.

I have been talking about the choice to follow God or not . You are going on about your sins etc.
Everyone has sins. Please address the question of the choice to follow God or reject him.

One may theoretically have observed any and all of the commandments (or indeed broken all of them) and not addressed the big question. Commit to God or reject him.

[Nearly Sane]

I’d have trouble, but not as much trouble as a moral irrealist would have seeing it.

Or rather you can't do it but then imply that's because of others' faults. At least it's not attempt to shift the burden of proof, rather just evade it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

So you think that smashing babies against rocks and raping wives is "actual" morality then, what with it being written in a book?

You think it is actually not moral. Welcome to moral realism.

[Nearly Sane]

Pidge,

So you think that smashing babies against rocks and raping wives is "actual" morality then, what with it being written in a book?

No thanks.

PS Any news on your most recent howler re a god with a plan, or is that yet another mess you'll just walk away from?

Given Vlad has not stated that you determine what is moral from the Bible specifically, I don't think it's a valid challenge.

[Outrider]

Can you show me a cultural norm?

Within the context of cultural norms as moral stances: slavery is wrong; women should have equal rights and opportunities; freedom of religion; personal liberty....

O. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Within the context of cultural norms as moral stances: slavery is wrong; women should have equal rights and opportunities; freedom of religion; personal liberty....

O.

So why are these things absolutely wrong or right.

[Stranger]

I have been talking about the choice to follow God or not . You are going on about your sins etc.
Everyone has sins. Please address the question of the choice to follow God or reject him.

The whole first argument applies to any choice anybody makes to do or not do anything.

One may theoretically have observed any and all of the commandments (or indeed broken all of them) and not addressed the big question. Commit to God or reject him.

The first argument applies as I've just said, but the Christian message is of a need for repentance and the bible calls us all sinners (Romans 3:23, for example) which means that, regardless of the first argument, there is no free choice not to sin - which makes it unjust for god to judge us for it.