Omnipotence

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Having made this positive assertion can you explain how parts of the UNIVERSE are ring fenced from GOD'S omnipotence?

No idea, but as it's not my claim I suggest you take it up with HV (see the OP).

Seems simple to me though - he can have omnipotent, or he can have not omnipotent. What he can't have though is omnipotent, except in the places it's not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And yet there are many who have religious beliefs not based on certainty.

Indeed there are those people too. There are also though some who, for example, will insist that morality can't be "real" unless it's written in a book they think to be the thoughts on an inerrant, certain god. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Indeed there are those people too. There are also though some who, for example, will insist that morality can't be "real" unless it's written in a book they think to be the thoughts on an inerrant, certain god.

And some who are not religious  do the same. So it would appear that religion tells you nothing here

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And some who are not religious  do the same. So it would appear that religion tells you nothing here

It tells you that, for those who crave certainty, religion provides a ready source for it - which must I suppose make it more attractive than it would be if it wasn't underpinned with all those "sure and certains" and the like.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It tells you that, for those who crave certainty, religion provides a ready source for it - which must I suppose make it more attractive than it would be if it wasn't underpinned with all those "sure and certains" and the like.

Does it? It provides certainty and uncertainty as with most belief systems.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No idea, but as it's not my claim I suggest you take it up with HV (see the OP).

Seems simple to me though - he can have omnipotent, or he can have not omnipotent. What he can't have though is omnipotent, except in the places it's not.

So this is really your idea then.
Which places in the UNIVERSE do you think GOD isn't omnipotent?

[Rhiannon]

NS,

It tells you that, for those who crave certainty, religion provides a ready source for it - which must I suppose make it more attractive than it would be if it wasn't underpinned with all those "sure and certains" and the like.

It’s a characteristic of some versions of Christianity, certainly. Not all - Spong always said he believed in the hope of an afterlife, nothing more. It’s also not actually a very comfortable way to live if you think faith brings certainty in this life - answer to prayer, protection etc or indeed the certainty of judgement - and this can feed mental health issues hugely, especially anxiety and OCD.

Of course one major faith has at its heart the need to make peace with uncertainty - Buddhism. You can add Taoism to that too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But isn't physicalism a philosophy of certainty?

How did we get onto certainty. Did one of the big swinging members of this board chuck it in and now the Posse are on a certainty hunt or something?

[Shaker]

But isn't physicalism a philosophy of certainty?

No.

Happy to help.

[ippy]

ippy,

Depends what you mean by "we" and "free", but fundamentally no. That it feels as though we do though is good enough for most practical purposes.

It's not a decision worth making from my own point of view, I am able to live in a way that I'm quite happy and content as I am and can't really see if there's any benefit having a long discussion about whether we have free will or not, I suspect that which ever it is whether we have it or not (something not 100% certain either way), will not make the slightest difference to any one of us.

I really suspect that the concept of free will is just another one of those so many ideas connected to religious belief in one way or another, that so often turns out to be just another bit of religious babble.

Regards ippy

[SteveH]

Quote
We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals. All of us were predestined to believe what we believe, so what becomes of objective truth, and out ability to know it, if that is the case? If there is no free-will, how can we possibly know, one way or the other?

L’Eau,

You’ve just tried two* logical fallacies (the fallacy of judgmental language and the argmentum ad consequentiam) that tell us nothing at all about the argument – namely that you can’t have something that’s “omnipotent” and at the same time has parts of the universe that are ring fenced from its omnipotence.

Why not engage with that rather than throw sand at it in the hope no-one notices?

* Coda: actually three if we include the argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) re how clever Dr Johnson was.

I pointed out that Sam the Cham was brainy and learned. I didn't draw any conclusions.
The consequentialist fallacy is that of thinking that a belief which is pleasant or has good results is true, and one which is unpleasant or has bad results is false. I haven't committed that one, either. I pointed out that if we have no free will, we were pre4destined to believe what we believe, so how can we know that it's true? In other words, we may or may not have free-will, but if we haven't, we can never know it, or anything else. We all behave as though we can know things, so in practise we all believe in free-will.
Judgemental language? Where?

[Shaker]

I pointed out that Sam the Cham was brainy and learned.

The pretentious git.

I didn't draw any conclusions.

You chose two very bad examples of Johnson thinking he was scoring philosophical points and failing dismally - why?

And you did draw a conclusion in any case - in #8 you quoted Johnson saying "Sir, we know our will is free, and there's an end on't" and appended: "Quite right too" - concluding that Johnson was correct.

The consequentialist fallacy is that of thinking that a belief which is pleasant or has good results is true, and one which is unpleasant or has bad results is false.

We know; Alan Burns does it with free will v. determinism twice a month regular as clockwork.

I pointed out that if we have no free will, we were pre4destined to believe what we believe, so how can we know that it's true? In other words, we may or may not have free-will, but if we haven't, we can never know it, or anything else. We all behave as though we can know things, so in practise we all believe in free-will.

Well yes - it's a useful fiction. (Like time, some of us would say). I don't see the connection between free will (or the lack thereof) and knowing things, though. As far as I can tell it sounds like a variant of that dreary old nonsense, the evolutionary argument against naturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I can tell it sounds like a variant of that dreary old nonsense, the evolutionary argument against naturalism.

Sounds like another argument the refutation of which is encrypted with the password only available to the brotherhood of rotary optical New atheists.

Unless you wish to reveal it to us now?

[jeremyp]

We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified,

Perhaps, but also unavoidable.

Anyway, I don't agree. Punishment is justified because part of the context in which a person makes a decision to commit a crime is the knowledge that getting caught will involve punishment.

[Shaker]

Sounds like another argument the refutation of which is encrypted with the password only available to the brotherhood of rotary optical New atheists.

Unless you wish to reveal it to us now?

Three months behind the curve, old fruit: http://tinyurl.com/y936bowz

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Three months behind the curve, old fruit: http://tinyurl.com/y936bowz

I'm sorry but how does the relative accuracy of our empirical senses bear any relationship to an evolutionary argument against naturalism? Secondly, you seem to be using science to argue a philosophical point. I'm not sure that is as bad as using Douglas Adams to settle a philosophical point but there you go.

I wonder if you could settle a bet I've had with myself. I think now I won't get either the evolutionary argument against naturalism from you or it's refutation. But I also think I might. What is it going to be?

[Shaker]

I'm sorry but how does the relative accuracy of our empirical senses bear any relationship to an evolutionary argument against naturalism? Secondly, you seem to be using science to argue a philosophical point. I'm not sure that is as bad as using Douglas Adams to settle a philosophical point but there you go.

I wonder if you could settle a bet I've had with myself. I think now I won't get either the evolutionary argument against naturalism from you or it's refutation. But I also think I might. What is it going to be?

Oh - you don't even know what the EAAN is - why didn't you say?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh - you don't even know what the EAAN is - why didn't you say?

Go ahead then.

[Shaker]

http://bfy.tw/ExPx

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Does it? It provides certainty and uncertainty as with most belief systems.

You seem to want to pick an argument here over nothing. I have "belief systems", and I'm not certain about any of them. So do lots of people. I merely note that the major religions are heavy on certainty, and lots of people crave it - whey then wouldn't there be an attraction? Morality not being "real" unless it's written in a book – the "gospel truth" – is just one example. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So this is really your idea then.
Which places in the UNIVERSE do you think GOD isn't omnipotent?

Again, try reading the OP (and my Reply 14) to see why you've got the backwards. It's HV's idea - I'm the one explaining why it fails.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

http://bfy.tw/ExPx

Interesting. When Ruse makes a criticism of conflating metaphysical and methodological naturalism one has to take that seriously of course.
Plantigna is I think right to take the ''convictions of man's mind'' quote from Darwin as Darwin talking about the full range of methodological and metaphysical beliefs and of course Lewis's framing as persuasive as ever.

My initial observations though is just because empirical senses have accuracy or reliability that need not have any bearing on metaphysical beliefs. Secondly I don't think you can argue that evolution has led to naturalism and theism or any metaphysical belief and yet only naturalism can be accurate.
That seems like special pleading to me.

To take Ruse's point it seems to me that you are conflating or attempting to between the methodological and metaphysical by making the leap between empirical accuracy and naturalism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

It’s a characteristic of some versions of Christianity, certainly. Not all - Spong always said he believed in the hope of an afterlife, nothing more. It’s also not actually a very comfortable way to live if you think faith brings certainty in this life - answer to prayer, protection etc or indeed the certainty of judgement - and this can feed mental health issues hugely, especially anxiety and OCD.

Of course one major faith has at its heart the need to make peace with uncertainty - Buddhism. You can add Taoism to that too.

Indeed, but you only have to read some of the contributors here to see how certain they are in their faith beliefs. That's not to say that there's not a whole tradition of doubting Christianity too, but the literal "gospel truth" part is clearly there.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Again, try reading the OP (and my Reply 14) to see why you've got the backwards. It's HV's idea - I'm the one explaining why it fails.

Be still my beating heart...we might be actually be in sweet agreement.
let's see, I think it fails because nothing in the universe can demonstrate that God is not omnipotent do you agree?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But isn't physicalism a philosophy of certainty?

How did we get onto certainty. Did one of the big swinging members of this board chuck it in and now the Posse are on a certainty hunt or something?

It's closer to it than materialism (your claim) but what you're actually thinking of is generally referred to a metaphysical naturalism (or a variant of it) - ie, the position that the natural is all there is. I have some sympathy for it because the alternative - "supernaturalism" - is incoherent, but on the ground that I suppose someone might one day come up with a cogent meaning for it I limit myself to materialism - ie, that the materialist model is the most reliable way to model the universe and thus to derive truths because that's all we have that's investigable and verifiable with intersubjective experience.