God and suffering

[torridon]

You consistently claim that the word "physical" is irrelevant.  But the logic you claim to know is entirely based upon the time dependent mechanistic "cause and effect" scenario observed within physical activity of material elements.  A scenario which totally fails to account for the conscious freedoms we all enjoy.  You consistently ignore the evidence that this reality indicates that our choices are driven from a source which exists and acts in the present, not just reacts to the past.  The source is YOU.

And how would that 'YOU' resolve any choice expect by weighing options against each other to discern it's preference ? We act on whatever our preference is, but noone gets to choose which preference to prefer.  That makes no sense.

[Alan Burns]

Baseless assertion. The actual "freedom" to do as we want is, in no way, incompatible with being "inevitable reactions" and the "freedom" you propose is simply nonsensical because it is self-contradictory.

Yet I have the freedom to consciously contradict you.  How can such freedom be compatible with inevitable reactions?

[Alan Burns]

Why do you go on with this mindless repetition? You seem to want to present your faith as if it involves some sort of lobotomy.

I want to witness to our own spiritual nature as a reflection of God's nature, and I am using my God given freedom to do so.

[torridon]

Yet I have the freedom to consciously contradict you.  How can such freedom be compatible with inevitable reactions?

You were free to contradict because moderation on this board allows it.  That's all.  The mods are not supernatural agents, last time I checked.

[Stranger]

But you have made assumptions concerning time.

That's because choice-making (obviously) happens within time. If something is not within time, it can only be static and can therefore make no choices, nor can it interact with anything - as both those require changes in state, which in turn, requires time.

This is simple logic Alan, that has nothing to do with the laws of physics.

Time is intrinsically part of the physical scenario.  Time began with the physical creation of our material universe.  You can't treat time as an independent entity separate from the laws of physics.  The concept that God, the ultimate source of all creation, exists in a timeless state may be beyond our human comprehension, but far stranger is the concept of time existing back to infinity with no beginning.  If God exists in an ever present state, then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that our own spiritual nature is the ever present state in which our conscious awareness exists and interacts within this physical, time dependent material world.

Off you go into nonsensical la-la land again.

Yet I have the freedom to consciously contradict you.  How can such freedom be compatible with inevitable reactions?

Why couldn't it be? You are contradicting me because of your faith and your very limited ability to think rationally about this subject. Both of those are because of your nature, nurture, and life's experience.

You keep on making the claim that it couldn't be all down to these things, so it's up to you to provide the reasoning.

I want to witness to our own spiritual nature as a reflection of God's nature...

You are failing miserably because all you are doing is mindlessly repeating the same things and totally refusing to react to the counterarguments or provide the logic you claimed that you had, thus making yourself look like a total idiot.

...and I am using my God given freedom to do so.

Oh, and making utterly baseless assertions like this.

You said you had LOGIC - WHERE IS IT?

[Sebastian Toe]

But you have made assumptions concerning time.

  If God exists in an ever present state, then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that our own spiritual nature is the ever present state in which our conscious awareness exists and interacts within this physical, time dependent material world.

How does that even begin to work?
If your soul exists in a state where there is no time, then either nothing happens or everything happens at once.
Thus it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that your soul may already have, from its viewpoint, interacted with this timebound universe up until your physical death.
That being the case it already knows every decision that you have made or ever will make.
Free will anyone?

[Alan Burns]

And how would that 'YOU' resolve any choice except by weighing options against each other to discern it's preference ? We act on whatever our preference is, but noone gets to choose which preference to prefer.  That makes no sense.

And after consciously weighing up the options, we consciously choose how, when and where to act upon the outcome of this "weighing up" process.  Can you not see that it is all driven by your present state of conscious awareness?  Your previous posts, indicating that it all happens within subconscious brain activity before the outcome enters our conscious awareness makes no sense.

[Nearly Sane]

But you have made assumptions concerning time.

Time is intrinsically part of the physical scenario.  Time began with the physical creation of our material universe.  You can't treat time as an independent entity separate from the laws of physics.  The concept that God, the ultimate source of all creation, exists in a timeless state may be beyond our human comprehension, but far stranger is the concept of time existing back to infinity with no beginning.  If God exists in an ever present state, then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that our own spiritual nature is the ever present state in which our conscious awareness exists and interacts within this physical, time dependent material world.

'exists in a timeless state' is meaningless drivel, since exists is a temporal claim. 

[Alan Burns]

Off you go into nonsensical la-la land again.

As you made no attempt to answer the points I made about the nature of time and it being an intrinsic element of the physical scenario you claim to be an irrelevance, I must presume that you did not fully understand the points I made.

[Stranger]

Can you not see that it is all driven by your present state of conscious awareness?

No, because "driven by your present state of conscious awareness" is totally devoid of any meaning. It's just word salad.

[Alan Burns]

'exists in a timeless state' is meaningless drivel, since exists is a temporal claim.

So can you presume that the ultimate source of the creation of our universe is just a "temporal" entity?

[Nearly Sane]

So can you presume that the ultimate source of the creation of our universe is just a "temporal" entity?

So you ignore the point, and then write more drivel,and a strawman.  Entity is also a temporal claim.

[Stranger]

As you made no attempt to answer the points I made about the nature of time and it being an intrinsic element of the physical scenario you claim to be an irrelevance, I must presume that you did not fully understand the points I made.

I explained to you exactly why time was necessary for choice-making (whether or not the elements were all physical) and you've ignored it. I know that time is part of the physical universe but it must also apply to any entity that makes choices, whether it is physical or not.

If you have an answer to that, then perhaps I didn't understand but I've made this point countless times before and all you do is ignore it. So, without just repeating the same word salad about "timeless state" or "the present state of conscious awareness", you can answer this, then please go ahead.

If, on the other hand, you insist that it is "beyond our human comprehension" and thus beyond any human logic, then fine, you can believe that if you want, but you can't at the same time claim to have (human) logic or evidence to back it up, you can only believe that by blind faith.

So, proper counterargument or withdraw your claim of logic and evidence, it's up to you.

[Sebastian Toe]

but far stranger is the concept of time existing back to infinity with no beginning. 

If our universe 'and thus spacetime 'started' 13 billion years ago, why would time exist back to infinity with no beginning?

[torridon]

And after consciously weighing up the options, we consciously choose how, when and where to act upon the outcome of this "weighing up" process.  Can you not see that it is all driven by your present state of conscious awareness?  Your previous posts, indicating that it all happens within subconscious brain activity before the outcome enters our conscious awareness makes no sense.

Choosing how, when and where to act is no different, it is just another weighing up process. We don't choose which preference to have with regard to choosing how, when and where to act upon a desire. We discern it. Do you really not understand this ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So can you presume that the ultimate source of the creation of our universe is just a "temporal" entity?

So can you presume that there needed to have been "ultimate source for the creation of our universe" at all?

Why?

[Stranger]

As you made no attempt to answer the points I made about the nature of time and it being an intrinsic element of the physical scenario you claim to be an irrelevance, I must presume that you did not fully understand the points I made.

And to add to my previous answer (#87): since you have made no attempt to answer pretty much every argument that has been put to you on this subject, by your own "logic" I must presume that you do not fully understand most of what has been said to you on the subject.

In particular, when I ask where the logic is that you said you had, and you make no attempt to answer, I must presume that you did not fully understand even that simple question...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So can you presume that there needed to have been "ultimate source for the creation of our universe" at all?

Why?

because it exists, and we exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

because it exists, and we exist.

And?

[Stranger]

because [the universe] exists...

So would any "ultimate source for the creation of our universe" that we might postulate...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

because it exists, and we exist.

What you seem to be struggling toward here but can't articulate is something like, "I can't imagine that the universe didn't have a beginning, and I can't imagine how that could happened naturalistically. Therefore I'll insert something I call "God" to do the job, and so I won't have to bother asking where this god came from I'll assert that question to be "beyond all human understanding". Job done".

There are several of problems with this nonsense, but why bother with it at all? What not instead just say, "the origin of the universe is beyond all human understanding" and stop there instead of inventing a causal agency that adds nothing to the conclusion and only gives you even more problems when you try to justify it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

What you seem to be struggling toward here but can't articulate is something like, "I can't imagine that the universe didn't have a beginning, and I can't imagine how that could happened naturalistically. Therefore I'll insert something I call "God" to do the job, and so I won't have to bother asking where this god came from I'll assert that question to be "beyond all human understanding". Job done".

There are several of problems with this nonsense, but why bother with it at all? What not instead just say, "the origin of the universe is beyond all human understanding" and stop there instead of inventing a causal agency that adds nothing to the conclusion and only gives you even more problems when you try to justify it?

How come you can imagine the universe not having a beginning and he can't.
I can that's why I allowed for it in my three options for the origins of the universe.

Either it has an  external creator, it has been around forever (although we would need an actual infinity rather than 'the maths' or it popped out of nothing.

People of our age remember the steady state hypothesis of Hoyle and the time the big bang became common currency. The steady state did not phase all Christian philosophers at the time possibly because there are arguments in which the infinity of the universe are irrelevant. possibly because there is a different question more fundamental namely why something and not nothing?

In interview with Robert Kuhn Sean Carroll was asked this question and seems to end up admitting there could have been nothing but we have a contingent universe depending on...…...luck.

[Stranger]

Either it has an  external creator, it has been around forever (although we would need an actual infinity rather than 'the maths' or it popped out of nothing.

You're still thinking in simplistic Newtonian terms. If the block universe of general relativity is correct, and there's a finite past, that does not mean that it "popped out of nothing" (which doesn't even make sense anyway), it means that the whole space-time just is. Adding an external creator that also just is, for no known reason, doesn't make things any less mysterious and unexplained.

[Alan Burns]

To get back on track of the opening post,

Pain and suffering do exist as a consequence of the natural unguided forces of this universe.  But by delegating the power of free will to humans, we have a means to help cope with suffering and pain by using our creative abilities to devise ways of alleviating, curing or preventing these things by consciously manipulating the forces of nature.  Such freedom helps to bring true meaning and value to the way we live our lives on this earth.  This is particularly poignant in our current climate.

[jeremyp]

To get back on track of the opening post,

Pain and suffering do exist as a consequence of the natural unguided forces of this universe.  But by delegating the power of free will to humans, we have a means to help cope with suffering and pain by using our creative abilities to devise ways of alleviating, curing or preventing these things by consciously manipulating the forces of nature.  Such freedom helps to bring true meaning and value to the way we live our lives on this earth.

Why do you think that needs free will?