|
Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this. |
On June 01 2012 06:42 meadbert wrote:
God cannot be all knowing and all powerful and also possess free will.
If God is all knowing then he knows the future and therefore cannot change the future.
If God cannot change the future then that implies that he is either not all powerful or he never "changes his mind."
If God never changes his mind, then he presumably lacks free will in so far as he has never and will never exercise it.
You're giving God human characteristics and assuming that he's locked into the principles that we are bound by in this universe. God could be everything and anything, God could also be an entity outside of the universe that is "nothing". There is more than one definition for God and each persons definition is going to be different for the most part.
|
On June 01 2012 06:42 meadbert wrote:
God cannot be all knowing and all powerful and also possess free will.
If God is all knowing then he knows the future and therefore cannot change the future.
If God cannot change the future then that implies that he is either not all powerful or he never "changes his mind."
If God never changes his mind, then he presumably lacks free will in so far as he has never and will never exercise it.
You are stating a perfect quality in the negative. If God is all knowing and knows/predetermines the future in his perfectness then changing his mind would imply that the initial decision was sub-optimal or what he had not intended, which is inconsistent with his character.
|
On June 01 2012 06:36 sc2fan007 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 06:24 Rassy wrote:
God must have a free will though (at least from every discription of god i get the impression he must have a free will) so if god exists free will does exist (at least within god) Funny how the least scientific thing I've read in this forum makes the most sense 
Funny how it is simply a begging the question fallacy. You could simply assert "Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore Free Will" or "Russell's Teapot, therefore Free Will" if that's your argument...
Any serious person would actually have to quantify the claim that the entire argument is based on (IE prove God, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot exist and possess those qualities)...
|
There is independently verifiable, observable information. There are inferences based upon this information. This is one function of science. Yet there is still unknown information.
There are the attitudes one cultivates in order to deal with the realities of everyday life. There are the practices that have been developed to cultivate such attitudes. Religion has been one avenue to such practices. As in common sense. Yet there are still unhappy and ineffective people.
Are there knowledgeable people who say the evidence suggests there is no reason to suppose that free will exists? Yes. Will this knowledge help me persuade my roommates to do their dishes? No.
The universe as observed through advanced scientific instruments does not need free will to explain empirical phenomena.
Life as experienced through the human condition requires in many instances a presupposition of free will in order to be lived effectively.
This biochemical mass, for one, will continue to generate the electronic pulsations known as belief in free will in order to ensure an optimal and sustainable flow of biochemical reactions.
|
|
|
I had a discussion with the most interesting journalist the other day (who happened to be sitting in the ER for extremely similar reasons, waiting on our girlfriends who were in surgery or more specifically recovery at the time) and we first got into a debate between republicans and democrats and then moved into economy and power control across the world it was all extremely invigorating and up beat, throughout the conversation I was getting a vibe he was Christian and as such I pressed the topic as I am atheist and believed if we could talk civil about all aspects of life we surely can do the same for religion, other than being defensive it panned out
It all boiled down to a single topic, my argument was that God is either real and evil or imaginary because if you are all knowing and all controlling you would have a lot of trouble arguing for the purpose of painful deaths to children or people in general who lived a just and happy life and didn't bother anybody (this is completely negating the thousands that die from starving). He then said that it doesn't matter because those will move onto heaven and all will be great.
Knwoing that he was copping out I pressed the issue with regards to different religions. I asked how a true loving god could condemn the near billion hindu's in India for having their parents parents religion to a fire pit of death and pain and anguish in hell for believing in the wrong religion when in actuality it wasn't the fault of the childs childs child for being brought up that way to begin with as religion is almost always the choice of the parents or the present culture.
So I made ended it on 2 notes
One: (note, this related to an early discussion insanity vs beliving in god) It is hypocritical for any religious person (and there are many) to criticize or think differently of someone who believes in imaginary things such as anything (unicorns, trolls, elves) because they simply can say "faith" tells them it's true which is exactly what any religion is with a more fancy story and bigger following
Two: God is either evil and I feel myself destined to share the fate of billions and billions of other souls who lived relatively good lives feeding the poor when they could or carrying groceries for the elderly but were judged not on actions but on belief, or god is non-existent/not all powerful.
anyway, this is kinda a bump but i felt it related relative to the topic in the sense of religion although the topic is really related to free will vs determinism if I remember correctly from the past.I felt it prudent to put this here as I feel arguing either of those subjects (especially when Sam Harris is the writer, a anti-religion activist if you will, it fit rather well.
so what do u think? was I wrong or do you agree ^^? thanks
|
As a gigantic philosopher whose mushroom trips have taught me more than any sober man could ever come close to realizing, I dislike the argument of "Free will" vs "determinism" with a passion. In my college philosophy course where we were asked where we stood, I sat there and lawld to myself as all the idiots posed their pathetic little arguments. First of all, free will vs determinism = arbitrary vs arbitrary, therefore NEITHER exists. It's a random chaotic universe that determines itself, and for humans to have the ignorance and arrogance to think that they participate in any way form or fashion is retarded. Clearly molecules have gathered themselves in a random matter to create us human beings, but that doesnt mean it was "determined" that we would exist. Nor does it mean that since we are intelligent we have "free will". People who even argue for or against free will or determinism need a higher IQ. I scored 30/35 on the mensa practice test....
|
I wish i could access TL from my computer @ work so i wouldnt have to type this on my phone. I'll try to make it short for now.
1- You are half-rigth. It is hypocritical from beleivers to beleive in the genuine faith of other gods, divinity, spirits and so on. However, mystical creatures ( elves ,orc, unicorn),if they exist, should have a body, should eat ,and thus should have let traces of their existence. That is not the case for gods. Lastly, being hypocritical against pastafarians and/or beleivers in the invisible pink unicorn is okay imho because these "religions" were created in the only goal and making fun of other religions. You cannot do that and then ask to be take seriously 
2- now we are going back to free will. Your argument implies that God makes all decisions and earth, and that us earthligs are just toy for him. I am going to disagree with that. God told us how we should live, he gave us a guide on how to behave (bible- coran .. etc). But he is not making decisions and/or actions for us. You decide what you do ,He doesnt. Therefore he can exist, and not be responsible for every action every single man.
This is a rather short answer, but hopefully it will give you some food for thought 
|
On August 22 2012 15:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I had a discussion with the most interesting journalist the other day (who happened to be sitting in the ER for extremely similar reasons, waiting on our girlfriends who were in surgery or more specifically recovery at the time) and we first got into a debate between republicans and democrats and then moved into economy and power control across the world it was all extremely invigorating and up beat, throughout the conversation I was getting a vibe he was Christian and as such I pressed the topic as I am atheist and believed if we could talk civil about all aspects of life we surely can do the same for religion, other than being defensive it panned out
It all boiled down to a single topic, my argument was that God is either real and evil or imaginary because if you are all knowing and all controlling you would have a lot of trouble arguing for the purpose of painful deaths to children or people in general who lived a just and happy life and didn't bother anybody (this is completely negating the thousands that die from starving). He then said that it doesn't matter because those will move onto heaven and all will be great.
Knwoing that he was copping out I pressed the issue with regards to different religions. I asked how a true loving god could condemn the near billion hindu's in India for having their parents parents religion to a fire pit of death and pain and anguish in hell for believing in the wrong religion when in actuality it wasn't the fault of the childs childs child for being brought up that way to begin with as religion is almost always the choice of the parents or the present culture.
So I made ended it on 2 notes
One: (note, this related to an early discussion insanity vs beliving in god) It is hypocritical for any religious person (and there are many) to criticize or think differently of someone who believes in imaginary things such as anything (unicorns, trolls, elves) because they simply can say "faith" tells them it's true which is exactly what any religion is with a more fancy story and bigger following
Two: God is either evil and I feel myself destined to share the fate of billions and billions of other souls who lived relatively good lives feeding the poor when they could or carrying groceries for the elderly but were judged not on actions but on belief, or god is non-existent/not all powerful.
anyway, this is kinda a bump but i felt it related relative to the topic in the sense of religion although the topic is really related to free will vs determinism if I remember correctly from the past.I felt it prudent to put this here as I feel arguing either of those subjects (especially when Sam Harris is the writer, a anti-religion activist if you will, it fit rather well.
so what do u think? was I wrong or do you agree ^^? thanks
the most wide spread 'rebuttal' to that is that God has a purpose and since your logic/train of thought is subjective, you can't see the whole picture so you are not allowed to question Him.
GG
|
On August 22 2012 15:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I had a discussion with the most interesting journalist the other day (who happened to be sitting in the ER for extremely similar reasons, waiting on our girlfriends who were in surgery or more specifically recovery at the time) and we first got into a debate between republicans and democrats and then moved into economy and power control across the world it was all extremely invigorating and up beat, throughout the conversation I was getting a vibe he was Christian and as such I pressed the topic as I am atheist and believed if we could talk civil about all aspects of life we surely can do the same for religion, other than being defensive it panned out
It all boiled down to a single topic, my argument was that God is either real and evil or imaginary because if you are all knowing and all controlling you would have a lot of trouble arguing for the purpose of painful deaths to children or people in general who lived a just and happy life and didn't bother anybody (this is completely negating the thousands that die from starving). He then said that it doesn't matter because those will move onto heaven and all will be great.
Knwoing that he was copping out I pressed the issue with regards to different religions. I asked how a true loving god could condemn the near billion hindu's in India for having their parents parents religion to a fire pit of death and pain and anguish in hell for believing in the wrong religion when in actuality it wasn't the fault of the childs childs child for being brought up that way to begin with as religion is almost always the choice of the parents or the present culture.
So I made ended it on 2 notes
One: (note, this related to an early discussion insanity vs beliving in god) It is hypocritical for any religious person (and there are many) to criticize or think differently of someone who believes in imaginary things such as anything (unicorns, trolls, elves) because they simply can say "faith" tells them it's true which is exactly what any religion is with a more fancy story and bigger following
Two: God is either evil and I feel myself destined to share the fate of billions and billions of other souls who lived relatively good lives feeding the poor when they could or carrying groceries for the elderly but were judged not on actions but on belief, or god is non-existent/not all powerful.
anyway, this is kinda a bump but i felt it related relative to the topic in the sense of religion although the topic is really related to free will vs determinism if I remember correctly from the past.I felt it prudent to put this here as I feel arguing either of those subjects (especially when Sam Harris is the writer, a anti-religion activist if you will, it fit rather well.
so what do u think? was I wrong or do you agree ^^? thanks
One:
I can explain my own religious views, but I'd rather not do it here since they're a bit controversial. I'd be happy to talk about it through PM, though.
But consider this. Yes, there's tons of proof that certain things in the Bible are moderately to grossly inaccurate. There's pretty much no proof of the existence of God. So why is religion such a powerful force in the world?
Two:
Maybe. It depends what you mean by all-powerful. If God is all-powerful in that he can do absolutely ANYTHING, then he can say "fuck logic" and simply make it work that way.
|
First I would like to express my thanks to Kwark for unlocking this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
In a few minutes or maybe a couple hours, I will begin writing my essay about determinism and why I strongly believe it to be the most "correct" model for reality. In the meantime, I might just create a blog so I can learn the formatting of TL.net since it's been so long since I've dabbled in BBCode that my gears are embarrassingly rusty.
|
For personal reasons, I need to state the following to instill in myself a sense of panic:
I met a girl from Asia who has proven to me superdeterminism is correct and she demonstrated it.
The SHA512 digest of her first name (in all lowercase) is 5b313aa8c820d8efca9f9538b5b7b4b99a89c6622906d05dfccc5bd39aab428a46f6d88405c39fa32b5f5cb1d3249458ddde50b3faf5b0744690b8eda46aa288
(Don't worry if this doesn't make sense -- I am trying to make myself panic.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
