Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

obplayer wrote: »

All of which are only possible through Christianity of course.

Hold on I never said that. in fact implicit in my post is the notion that people would do what they do anyway, Christian or not.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Valid point, justice is always subjective, the rationalisation isn't.
I don't think theirs any way to get round the problem, remove the rcc, isis or whomever, what will we base justice on? Science? Again we are back to the real problem, how and who decides what science applies?

Society - and we progress from stoning for adultery to no death penalty . Though we can go backwards also, but in the west the trend is generally one of progress .

marienbad wrote: »

Society - and we progress from stoning for adultery to no death penalty . Though we can go backwards also, but in the west the trend is generally one of progress .

I think religion is society, all we do is swap one set of priests for another.
My own opinion is we stop with the idea that religion isn't about this world, the notion that we are here to suffer through some test is nonsense and in a way insulting to the God who made us. Start working from the notion that God wants the best for us, he set up things in a way that lets us thrive, show some thanks by actually getting on with it.

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah but in a democratic society like the West at least we can get to decide what is right and wrong and not some unelected unaccountable archbishop in Dublin . And we get to change our minds.

Democracy is good

MaxWig wrote: »

What actuality?

Closer to what?

I re-read my post and I asked myself the same questions! Not a well thought out post.
I was mildly annoyed that there was the claim that people don't understand the Christian point of view.
I'd say that posters from either side of this debate would have a basic idea of where Christianity is coming from. It's been around long enough, and if it can be approached from a more comprehensible and acceptable avenue - well Christianity has had 2000 years to do that.
I think that if you make a claim for Christianity, if you consider yourself a Christian, you should be expected to adhere to the basics of that belief. People allow that the bible is the physical origin and authority for this belief.
Which is why so much of this thread has been taken up with debates about scripture.
If there is straying from what most people would view as the Christian standpoint, that may be just as valid, but it could also be argued that it's another religion, another belief, another variation on the Christian theme.
If a Christian were to say to me, "I can't explain all of it but I hope it's true and I'm prepared to accept it as true even though I don't fully understand it", I could understand and accept that - it's faith, belief.
I think that the notion of an omnipotent god in a world of obvious reality is illogical.
I would suggest that we are placed upon this journey in this world - whether by some supernatural agency or by ourselves in some way.
But if that agency is the classical Christian god who loves us - well he has an odd way of showing that love.

hinault wrote: »

I don't agree that God has an odd way of showing that love.

Each of us has been created in the image and likeness of God.
Does image and likeness refer to physical appearance? Perhaps. Or perhaps image and likeness refer to spirituality, where the image and likeness applies to spiritual dimensions?

The fact that we received free will, allows each one of us freedom. Freedom to decide whether to strive to live by God's teachings, freedom to decide to ignore/reject God's teachings. It is ultimately our own choice to accept or reject what God teaches.

If we didn't have free will, we would not be free. We would have a conditional existence instead. And that conditional existence would mean that we would be compelled and that we would have no option to make a choice.

Love is ultimately about freedom and unconditionality. If pre conditions are set then that love cannot be unconditional.

And burning for eternity if we don't choose one way is not compulsion ?

If a guy puts a gun to you head and requests your wallet is he asking or stealing ?

silverharp wrote: »

We always have free will

Only because God willed that each person be granted free will.

silverharp wrote: »

We always have free will , it wouldnt matter if god sat on top of the sugar loaf and you could pop up there for a chat or stays behind an impenetrable firewall where you never quite know whether it exists or not. And in fact if a god did exist I would certainly question its methods whereby the god uses the worst forms of transmission ie human prophets and someone claiming to be deity but somehow not of interest to the Romans beyond being a local trouble maker.

How can you reject the idea of a god and then say you have free will.

It's one or the other.

Determinism or free will.

Science or god?

You can't have it both ways

silverharp wrote: »

Are you talking about the same concept as a christian is? As far as I understand in the way that Christians have explained to me in the past is that I can't have any evidence that there is a god or my choice to accept the god wouldn't be one of free will? Which never made sense to me.

No, just in a general sense.

Either you believe in causal relationships, or you believe god changes things with magic.

Matter works upon matter. Your brain responds to stimulus in the only way it can. The stimulus that causes a response was also caused by a stimulus.

Free will is nowhere to be found in that equation.

You may experience it as free will, but that's another story.

silverharp wrote: »

I don't accept that I am a biological robot for the very reason that robots or sharks or ants cant ponder their own mortality or the various other aspects of our character that make us human and as science hasn't cracked every piece of knowledge about the universe I wouldn't accept any answer now as definitive as the answer in 10 thousand years from now will be different .

OK - so you reject determinism in the hope that something more satisfactory might explain your sense of freedom?

Sound familiar?

:P

MaxWig wrote: »

OK - so you reject determinism in the hope that something more satisfactory might explain your sense of freedom?

Sound familiar?

:P

No , I don't dismiss that there could be a god , i just dont care as I have seen no evidence that one has made itself known to mankind. I don't need my sense of freedom to be explained . I choose to act as if its true. Newton's gravity was good enough for Newton , deciding that people are rational actors is good enough for me

I don't want to get too side tracked I still want to know why christians believe having evidence of god would cancel a free will choice?

silverharp wrote: »

No , I don't dismiss that there could be a god , i just dont care as I have seen no evidence that one has made itself known to mankind. I don't need my sense of freedom to be explained . I choose to act as if its true. Newton's gravity was good enough for Newton , deciding that people are rational actors is good enough for me

I don't want to get too side tracked I still want to know why christians believe having evidence of god would cancel a free will choice?

Can't speak for Christians, but if a stimulus causes my brain to respond in a certain way, I'm not sure how free will comes into it.

orubiru wrote: »

Well, it really depends on how you want to define "free will".

I can cycle home from work or I can scrap that plan and get the bus, or the LUAS, or a taxi, or walk, or ask someone for a lift home.

All of these options are possible and there are no real obstacles preventing me from choosing on over the other. So isn't that free will?

No. Something will happen to cause you to make a final choice. There's no avoiding the fact. The neurons in your brain are responding to stimulus - just like everything else. Unless you break the chain of determinism, you will end up doing whatever is caused.

Now, yes, you could say that the chemical and electrical activity in my brain will determine which decision "I" make or you could argue that social factors might influence my decision. It might even be possible to predict what choice I will make if you knew everything about me and my past.

When it comes down to it I think the concept of "free will" is really just a label that describes how people are able to make decisions because breaking it down to the atomic level (or lower?) is just far too time consuming to be of any use.

Not really. These are physical realities. It's cause and effect, or it isn't.
I don't think we need to get into quantum mechanics for this.

Yes, the chemical and electrical activity in your brain will determine which decision you make. And the chemical and electrical activity in your brain will be determined by something else, which was caused by something else, which was caused by something etc. etc. big bang! Nothing!

The illusion that we have free will is strong enough that we may as well just believe it.

Believe it by all means. I'm all for belief!

orubiru wrote: »

However, what people tend to do is to label things and in this case most of us would draw a line at something like "well I decided to have the salad instead of the pizza" and say that was exercising free will. To be honest I wouldn't be too interested in arguing against that.

Does not make it go away

One could easily just turn around and say that pizza, salad, your brain or whatever is just part of the universe. Really, the Big Bang is still going on and we are part of that. Or, you could call it all "The Universe".

Hmmm - yeah!

To say there is no such thing as free will is like saying there is no such thing as a movie because it's all just individual pixels on a screen creating the illusion of a movie.

No - to borrow your analogy - accepting we have free will in spite of determinism would be like looking at the TV screen and thinking that the tiny people in the box were doing a private show just for you and being amazed that you weren't interrupting them when you put the kettle on.

Or maybe you'd argue that there is no such thing as music because really it's just sound waves being interpreted by your brain.

Well in this instance, one does not rule out the possibility of the other.

silverharp wrote: »

I'd still expect to see this tested , real individual versus a hologram , computer programme or clone under some kind of lab experiment ? Or what would be a valid test ?

Seriously?

You imagine that things might happen - in this world - without a cause?

You've stumped me - I do not know of a test.

I want to be in your head!