Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Maeght]

The big bang indicates the beginning of time as we know it, but not the beginning of "that which exists" - the ever present God.

He asserts.

[Outrider]

All I am saying is that the implementation of our wishes and desires are not entirely dictated by past events, but by the God given power of our human soul.

We know what you're saying, we just don't understand why you're still saying it when all the different ways that it's nonsense have been repeatedly pointed out to you.

What I was postulating was that God, from His ever present existence outside our time dimension, can be aware of what we do with our gift of free will without taking away our freedom to use it as we wish within our time dimension.

From outside of time, a god could see what to us was, is and will be all, there would be no differentiation, it would be looking at a four-dimensional object. Which means that what you feel is tomorrow becoming today and yesterday disappearing is just our perception moving through a dimension. Tomorrow is already there, yesterday is still there, and that thing that you think is 'choice' is already determined.

The big bang indicates the beginning of time as we know it, but not the beginning of "that which exists" - the ever present God.

What does existence mean in the absence of time? If there is no time, how does something 'exist'?

O.

[jeremyp]

You are trying to define what the limitations of "outside time" are by looking at them from within the time dependent space of our universe.  Try to imagine this scenario the other way round - from a timeless state it may be possible to be aware of every event which has ever occurred from the big bang to the death of the universe itself.

truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!  John 8:58

There can be no awareness in a timeless state because that implies no change. And what is awareness if not a change of state in response to stimuli?

[Alan Burns]

Yes, we are, but we do so according to who we are, and who we are is the direct result of our nature, nurture, and experience. If our basic nature, and every experience we have ever had in our lives does not fully determine who we are and hence what we choose, then there is literally nothing else left that can influence our choices, so any further variation must be for no reason, i.e. random.

Yes, there are reasons for our choices.  The reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and we can think of many different reasons for what we may do in our lives.  I have never suggested that our conscious choices could be random.  My contention is the ultimate source of our conscious choices.  Your logic would dictate that from the moment we are born, every event in our lives would be predetermined by past events over which we can have no conscious control.  So following your postulated logic, we are not free to choose our own destiny - it would be predetermined from the moment we are born.  I cannot choose what to believe in. I can only believe in what I perceive to be true.  But in perceiving the truth I need the freedom to consciously contemplate whatever is needed to lead me to the truth.  And having found the truth I have used my gift of free will to consciously accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.  This would have been impossible if my mind was entirely determined by physically determined material reactions which are beyond conscious control.

[Maeght]

Yes, there are reasons for our choices.  The reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and we can think of many different reasons for what we may do in our lives.  I have never suggested that our conscious choices could be random.  My contention is the ultimate source of our conscious choices.  Your logic would dictate that from the moment we are born, every event in our lives would be predetermined by past events over which we can have no conscious control.  So following your postulated logic, we are not free to choose our own destiny - it would be predetermined from the moment we are born.  I cannot choose what to believe in. I can only believe in what I perceive to be true.  But in perceiving the truth I need the freedom to consciously contemplate whatever is needed to lead me to the truth.  And having found the truth I have used my gift of free will to consciously accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.  This would have been impossible if my mind was entirely determined by physically determined material reactions which are beyond conscious control.

No it wouldn't. As you say, you cannot choose your beliefs. The fact that you believe something tells us nothing about why you believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you suggesting that things exists outside time? Because that has its own issues since existence is a time based concept. 'Outside time' isn't a concept, it's two words stuck together with no meaning.

Is existence dependent on time, or is it the other way round.
In other words is time just another emerged property?

If the universe has a starting point and evolved, when did time become a thing, in other words, when did it appear?

Does time pass when travelling at the speed of light? If not, according to your logic, how can it be said to even exist?

Existence due to time seems peculiarly physicalist and empirical to me.
The there are the linguistic consequences of what you are saying which is, the longer you exist, the more existent you are.
You never here that. Rather, You exist or you don't.

And finally there is the Religionethics effect where some atheists become, as part of a combined delusion, to think that they have settled the great philosophical questions whereas wider reading suggests that not to be the case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All dictionaries.

Not the ones, I've looked at Pal.
I will be reviewing the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on existence though to see if your definition is front and centre or even there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And what on earth would he have known about either time or the universe from his position of 4thC ignorance. He almost certainly thought that the sun went around the earth and that the universe was a few thousand years old.

Not his fault of course, he lived at a time when our knowledge of time and space was incredibly limited and often based on faith rather than actual knowledge and evidence. But nonetheless that would have been his perspective so as an arbiter of truth on time and the universe I think he can comfortably be ignored.

That the earth goes around the sun is a fact and the questions of time, whether the universe had a beginning, existence etc are still matters of debate and speculation means that you are on the Crap analogies.

How could a primitive come to agree that the universe comes with time rather than in time.
It seems to me as though your science on this is more useful than his and yet you have no more proof for your reasoning than he has of his.

He would have reasoned that aspects of nature had been represented by the God's but given his belief in an ultimate creator God's, lesser God's or aspects of nature would be merely created and therefore he would say that time is just another aspect of the creation.

On the other hand though. If you and Nearly Sane are saying that existence is dependent on time then it is difficult to see how you aren't suggesting that time is the necessary entity responsible for the universe.

Ha ha, serves you right.

[torridon]

Yes, there are reasons for our choices.  The reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and we can think of many different reasons for what we may do in our lives.  I have never suggested that our conscious choices could be random.  My contention is the ultimate source of our conscious choices.  Your logic would dictate that from the moment we are born, every event in our lives would be predetermined by past events over which we can have no conscious control.  So following your postulated logic, we are not free to choose our own destiny - it would be predetermined from the moment we are born.  I cannot choose what to believe in. I can only believe in what I perceive to be true.  But in perceiving the truth I need the freedom to consciously contemplate whatever is needed to lead me to the truth.  And having found the truth I have used my gift of free will to consciously accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.  This would have been impossible if my mind was entirely determined by physically determined material reactions which are beyond conscious control.

Whereas had you been born in Karachi or Jakarta you would have used your 'gift of free will' to consciously choose the path of Islam and would now be prostrating yourself to Mecca five times daily.

[Stranger]

Yes, there are reasons for our choices.  The reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and we can think of many different reasons for what we may do in our lives.  I have never suggested that our conscious choices could be random.  My contention is the ultimate source of our conscious choices.  Your logic would dictate that from the moment we are born, every event in our lives would be predetermined by past events over which we can have no conscious control.  So following your postulated logic, we are not free to choose our own destiny - it would be predetermined from the moment we are born.  I cannot choose what to believe in. I can only believe in what I perceive to be true.  But in perceiving the truth I need the freedom to consciously contemplate whatever is needed to lead me to the truth.  And having found the truth I have used my gift of free will to consciously accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.  This would have been impossible if my mind was entirely determined by physically determined material reactions which are beyond conscious control.

FALLACY: Personal incredulity.
FALLACY: Argument by assertion.
FALLACY: Appeal to consequences.

Mindless logic- and thought-free idiocy.

'Conscious control' and the role of consciousness in general, has nothing to do with it. NOTHING. The entire contents of your consciousness (or 'conscious awareness'), and everything that you call 'me', must either be the result of nature, nurture, and experience, or involve some randomness. No randomness means fully determined by the past.

You are in control of your destiny. It is you yourself that is the result of the past. Nothing is being imposed on you from outside. There is no other you that is being pushed around by the past against its will.

[Stranger]

If the universe has a starting point and evolved, when did time become a thing, in other words, when did it appear?

I suggest having a bit of a think about that question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whereas had you been born in Karachi or Jakarta you would have used your 'gift of free will' to consciously choose the path of Islam and would now be prostrating yourself to Mecca five times daily.

Or if born in the UK you'd be an agnostic atheist

[Nearly Sane]

Not the ones, I've looked at Pal.
I will be reviewing the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on existence though to see if your definition is front and centre or even there.

I didn't give a definition. So you appear not to understand what definition means.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suggest having a bit of a think about that question.

There would have to have a moment when time started I.e Time zero. If there was time at the beginning I suppose.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't give a definition. So you appear not to understand what definition means.

I think one can implicitly give a definition. Your donation being that existence is time related.

[Nearly Sane]

I think one can implicitly give a definition. Your donation being that existence is time related.

Thar's not a definition. Thanks for illustrating that you have no grasp of the word definition.

[Enki]

What I was postulating was that God, from His ever present existence outside our time dimension, can be aware of what we do with our gift of free will without taking away our freedom to use it as we wish within our time dimension.

You are simply speculating that god is omniscient, in that it can see the past and the future. Therefore, according to your conjecture, the future results of our choices and actions are already determined and there can be no room for the freedom to do otherwise.

[Alan Burns]

You are in control of your destiny. It is you yourself that is the result of the past. Nothing is being imposed on you from outside. There is no other you that is being pushed around by the past against its will.

So please explain what precisely is the ultimate source of this control.
You claim that in every event in our lives we cannot possibly have chosen to have done anything different - which to me is the scenario for a pre programmed robot with no will of its own.

[Nearly Sane]

So please explain what precisely is the ultimate source of this control.
You claim that in every event in our lives we cannot possibly have chosen to have done anything different - which to me is the scenario for a pre programmed robot with no will of its own.

What would lead to a different choice?

[Gordon]

So please explain what precisely is the ultimate source of this control.

Begging the question with some added reification in one sentence - well done!

You claim that in every event in our lives we cannot possibly have chosen to have done anything different - which to me is the scenario for a pre programmed robot with no will of its own.

Pretty much - but with some added biology.

[Stranger]

So please explain what precisely is the ultimate source of this control.

Sorry, I really can't be arsed to explain this to you yet again

You claim that in every event in our lives we cannot possibly have chosen to have done anything different - which to me is the scenario for a pre programmed robot with no will of its own.

FALLACY: Appeal to consequences.

There can be no concept of will without a mind to will something. You cannot have a mind if it is not the product of a nature and a life of experiences. You are you for reasons. Randomness cannot make you any more 'free' and no randomness means fully determined by initial conditions and subsequent inputs.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

Proof if proof be needed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/cx2r39k1xvyt

God is in his Heaven all is right with the World❤️✝️

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For Nearly Sane and Stranger with Love.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

[Alan Burns]

Sorry, I really can't be arsed to explain this to you yet again

FALLACY: Appeal to consequences.

There can be no concept of will without a mind to will something. You cannot have a mind if it is not the product of a nature and a life of experiences. You are you for reasons. Randomness cannot make you any more 'free' and no randomness means fully determined by initial conditions and subsequent inputs.

Randomness has nothing to do with it.
Please answer -
In your version of determinism, is our "will" determined by past events beyond our conscious control?
If so, we have no control over our destiny.  It will be pre determined from birth.

[torridon]

Randomness has nothing to do with it.
Please answer -
In your version of determinism, is our "will" determined by past events beyond our conscious control?
If so, we have no control over our destiny.  It will be pre determined from birth.

We don't know if that is true as we cannot be certain whether true randomness exists or not.  Nonetheless it is evident that your 'free' choice to follow the christian path was for reasons, and likewise the Pakistani 'freely' choosing to follow the path of Islam was also born of reasons.  We cannot be 'free' of the reasons that underpin our choices, to claim so is to claim that our choices are indeed random.