Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

orubiru wrote: »

Its easy to accept free will in spite of determinism.

If I choose to eat the Pizza or the Salad (or both or neither) then I can call that decision free will even though I understand that reality is deterministic.

Think of it as using two different languages to describe reality. Talking about "free will" is just using simplified language to describe the lives of humans. Discussing determinism by going right down to the atomic level or by going right back to the beginnings of the universe is using a far more complex language.

We know that free will is an illusion but in this instance it is easier to just go along with the illusion and get on with life.

This works especially well when other go along with the illusion also. To be fair, if I told someone I chose the pizza instead of the salad and they tried to explain that I didn't actually "choose" then I'd explain that I know that and I'd also advise that they maybe not be so pedantic all the time.

God is a different matter altogether as not everyone wants to play along with the same illusion. So evidence for claims is demanded and we end up here.

You lost me.

Literally speechless at that. Best for me not to comment.

So hard not to. But no!

orubiru wrote: »

Go ahead. I am more than happy to change my opinions if some serious flaw is pointed out.

I am not saying that the universe is not deterministic. I am saying that "free will" is more of a philosophical concept that a solid description of reality.

Right.

So the concept of free will is ok with you?

But the meaning of 'free' in this case is meaningless and could be replaced with something else.

And likewise 'will'.

So it's just a thing we say.

Like when I look at the sun going down, and I stare really hard and think about it disappearing and I say to people I'm 'mind-sinking' the sun.

It's just an illusion, but that's ok. I know it's not real!

'Why would he do that' I hear you say!

No reason. It's daft as anything. If I was to do something like that, there'd have to be some sort of pay off

orubiru wrote: »

Well, yes. It is just a thing we say. Human beings are incredibly unpredictable.

Like you could hold in your hand a bottle of water and then pour it all onto the floor. You'd never be able to predict where each molecule of water will land. You'd never even be able to choose a single water molecule in the bottle and predict the exact path of that molecule from the bottle to the floor.

In this case there is determinism to an extent, we know that the water will fall to the floor, but there is also unpredictability, we don't know exactly how the water will fall to the floor (we don't know where each molecule will end up and we don't know the path that molecules will take).

We use the idea of "free will" to explain the unpredictability and randomness of human behavior. Person A can choose Pizza or Salad for lunch. It's impossible to make an accurate prediction because people are unpredictable. We can guess and maybe we'd be right but we also know that the person could randomly just make the other choice.

Because of this randomness, determinism and "free will" are not incompatible.

I'm sorry, I am not a quantum physicist so my explanation is probably quite clumsy, but your assertion that you "can't have it both ways" with determinism and free will is incorrect.

You had me until 'Because of this randomness, determinism and "free will" are not incompatible.'

indioblack wrote: »

And why would we reject God's teachings? For in rejecting them we would be accepting this description of god as real. If that were so we would not reject anything from god.
For the atheist there is no rejection. Because you can't reject something that comes from someone you don't think exists.
You mentioned free will, love, freedom and no conditions.
So there is no penalty for the unbeliever?

Your presuming the penalty is a thing imposed rather than a natural consequence of the choices. If you choose cherry Garcia, not getting cookie dough is not a penalty, it's a consequence of choosing one over the other.
If you chose to ignore the speed limit a fine is a penalty, the damage if you crash is a consequence of the speed you chose.

indioblack wrote: »

And why would we reject God's teachings? For in rejecting them we would be accepting this description of god as real. If that were so we would not reject anything from god.
For the atheist there is no rejection. Because you can't reject something that comes from someone you don't think exists.
You mentioned free will, love, freedom and no conditions.
So there is no penalty for the unbeliever?

Depends on how you define an atheist.

The person living in some far flung corner of this planet untouched by religion of any kind, who has never communicated with anyone anywhere about religious/spiritual belief, is an atheist.

Is that atheist the same atheist, who as a person was brought up in a religiously observant household, but subsequently rejects that God exists?

I think you'll agree that there is a qualitative difference between both atheists.

You are on this thread discussing the existence, or lack of, an entity known as God.
You have some exposure as to why people here claim that God exists.
You read the posts here from believers advocating for why they believe God exists. Even if you disagree with the claim that God exists, you can't deny that you have knowledge of the claim and some knowledge of what that belief claim advocates.

It is seldom that I hear or read honest claims by atheists.
I suspect that many who claim to be atheists are either mistaken or are lying.

When people claim to be atheists what they actually mean is that they accept that God might well exist but that they don't wish to abide by the rules set by God. They prefer to do their own thing instead and they prefer to live by their own rules.

They would be far more honest articulating that view rather than saying that they don't believe that God exists.

As I said in my earlier reply to you, each and every single one of us has free will to decide to accept or to reject God.
God's lets each one of us determine that choice for ourselves.

The man in the far flung part of the planet, he doesn't have the same choice that you have been given and which I have been given. He has not been made aware that there is an entity known as God that some people choose to believe in. You and I have been made aware that there is an entity known as God that some people chose to believe in.

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?

The example you cite is a choice.

It's not a choice which helps to define what free will is.

orubiru wrote: »

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.

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

Maybe.

Free will applies to making moral choices. Free will concerns making the choice between choosing to do what is good and choosing to do what is evil.

Deciding whether to get the bus to a destination or to take a taxi to the same destination is not an exercise in what is defined as free will.
Taking a bus is not a good or evil moral option.
Neither is taking a taxi a good or evil moral option.
Objectively both choices are morally neutral. Neither choice carries any moral (or immoral) imperative.

Free will concerns making moral (immoral) choices. And those choices can be nuanced given certain conditions.
It is morally wrong to kill another person.
But if someone is trying to kill you, is it morally justified to kill the other person to preserve your own life.
These are moral and immoral choices, and exercises in free will.

Two starving animals presented with food. Neither animal will consider sharing that food with the other animal. Instinct takes over and they will eat as much as each can, without any concern for the other animal. Animal have no faculties to make moral choices.

Man does possess the faculties to make moral choices.
Two starving human presented with food might well conclude that the greater good is best served by sharing the same food.

indioblack wrote: »

So what your saying is that this is the way things are, and that a refusal to accept this results in a natural consequence.
Is this god as nature, as the universe - rather than the individual personal god of, says me, most people's thinking?

The personal God part is God saving you from the consequences if you accept his help. By the way, this help is only possible due to God undoing the consequences of the fall in the first place. And to be honest to remain logical the only real consequence we are saved from is separation from God. How that would play out in ' heaven' is anyone's guess. Worst case an eternity of regret, best case you get annihilated. Not really the threat eternal suffering in a lake of fire is.
Theirs a more sophisticated view that involves suffering in the presence of god because his presence is repugnant to you which I find slightly more convincing.

hinault wrote: »

That's the fact of the matter, abc101.

Even if the evidence is presented by Christ himself, they'd seek to dispute the evidence.
In fact they do dispute the evidence.

The bottom line is that they know God exists. But they don't wish to be part of God's people. So be it.

Lk 16:27-31 seems to predict such outcomes:-
27 Then he said, ‘I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house,
28 for I have five brethren, that he may testify unto them lest they also come into this place of torment.’
29 Abraham said unto him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’
30 And he said, ‘Nay, father Abraham; but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.’
31 And Abraham said unto him, ‘If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.’”

Sad but true, apparently.

It's the use of free-will to decide to accept or reject God.

here is a good visual take down of the Quran cosmology. its all flat earth , sky "raised" , earth laid out type of nonsense which is fine if they are to be treated as stories like most christians do but as revealed science , no , primitive writings of the time.


https://youtu.be/_FaNg_nxqns

haiyna wrote: »

For some reason I can't post links so I'll tell you to simply search "the scientific miracles of the Quran" on Google and then you can choose to read about what you want.

I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for, but this might be of use.
Pikthall [al-Anbiya' 21:33] And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.
Shakir [al-Anbiya' 21:33] And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres. YusufAli [al-Anbiya' 21:33] It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

those versus make it sound like the sun revolves around the earth. And below we have a Muslim "scientist" arguing that the earth is flat. He sounds like a Muslim version of Ken Ham :pac: