Careful Gus , the closet Christians will get you and eat you for lunch . You know starts with an F
For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.
- Thread starter phlogistician
- Start date
Careful Gus , the closet Christians will get you and eat you for lunch . You know starts with an F
i will give your questions a once over.
shoot.
AHH Gustav so glad you are back!!!!
since when is an unknown a lie?
do you know whether God is male or female or whatever?
so don't make it a point of failure.
James is perfectly honest in saying he doesn't know Gods gender.
what makes you think that God is a controlling God?
why can't God exist and we still have free will?
i believe he created us with the ability to choose, why would he do that if he didn't want us to exercise that free will?
you already have a preconceived notion of who/what God is Phlo. pry from catholic teachings..
how come you associate 'God knows' to 'loss of free will'? this intones that God is a controlling God, I for one, do not believe that..
you saying that a program couldn't be made that lets the machine make its own decisions? (surpass its programing?)
here we get into what your definition of honest is.
and what you accept as a valid answer.
specially when your ignore valid points..why haven't you reply'd to any of my post? do you really think me dishonest?
i think he is doing an excellent job of it,
in a real debate it is not the debaters who determine the winner..
so what do you think ppl?
james or phlo?
who is the better debater?
JamesR
did i deserve this: ?
on my wall no less..he didn't even PM it..
Believers in anything invisible really do believe what they believe, so there is no outright dishonesty. For the very strong believers, little or nothing can be done abut it. See SciForums or life for evidence. Best to ignore or use for investigation into the nature of strong belief. Yet, there will be clashes, such as in the political arena, with the talk being geared more for the voters. And of course with the indoctrination of children or unsuspecting adults. Energy will ever go through its paces, settling, and then reforming and moving on. Meanwhile, live life.
In what way is that different to the study of science? Science is trying to understand things not yet understood.
There just has to be dishonesty, it needn't involve me.
It's lying to yourself, and that is as bad as any form of deception.
Oh, you are so witty! With your trolling, and sniping, and character assassination attempts, and not contributing to the thread, and OH! You got banned.
I was not an Astronomer. I spent four years working with a bunch of Astronomers as their technician. There was a hardware facility. Those guys were rocket scientists, and built parts for satellites. I supported some of their equipment too. Projects I have contributed to are in orbit currently. Not that any of this has any bearing on the debate, but hopefully it will allow others to dismiss your derision as easily as I do.
And you are so compassionate and so concerned for their wellbeing that you go on a crusade against them. Just like militant Christians and militant Muslims, torturing and killing all those heathens for their own good, yes.
phlogistician:
Just because somebody (God) knows what you will do doesn't mean that you can't make a free choice about what to do. As far as you're concerned, your choices are unconstrained. You do what you want, don't you?
I fear we're going to get into another one of your definitional arguments here. If you want to go down that path, you'll have to grasp the bull by the horns and specify exactly what is needed for a choice to be "free".
I never flip-flopped on the gender point. You made an initial assumption based on what I wrote. I corrected your misconception of my position on gender.
As for the biological entity thing, my conception of God is quite different from my conception of biological entities. I can't speak for yours, because you maintain that you have no conception of God at all.
If you want to advance this particular point, you should specify what kinds of characteristics you'd expect God to have were he a biological entity. Then you can ask me whether God has those characteristics or not, and I'll do my best to answer them. Working together, I'm sure we can settle the issue.
We can design computers to make random choices. We can fully understand how they function and yet be unable to predict what they will do. Pure randomness, of course, is not a good model of free will. But we can also program computers to use some randomness in combination with varying their responses according to particular environmental conditions. Again, we end up with a situation in which we cannot be sure how the computer will act in a given environment/situation. Is it demonstrating "free will"? Again, it comes back to exactly what you mean by "free".
Just because somebody (God) knows what you will do doesn't mean that you can't make a free choice about what to do. As far as you're concerned, your choices are unconstrained. You do what you want, don't you?
I fear we're going to get into another one of your definitional arguments here. If you want to go down that path, you'll have to grasp the bull by the horns and specify exactly what is needed for a choice to be "free".
I never flip-flopped on the gender point. You made an initial assumption based on what I wrote. I corrected your misconception of my position on gender.
As for the biological entity thing, my conception of God is quite different from my conception of biological entities. I can't speak for yours, because you maintain that you have no conception of God at all.
If you want to advance this particular point, you should specify what kinds of characteristics you'd expect God to have were he a biological entity. Then you can ask me whether God has those characteristics or not, and I'll do my best to answer them. Working together, I'm sure we can settle the issue.
We can design computers to make random choices. We can fully understand how they function and yet be unable to predict what they will do. Pure randomness, of course, is not a good model of free will. But we can also program computers to use some randomness in combination with varying their responses according to particular environmental conditions. Again, we end up with a situation in which we cannot be sure how the computer will act in a given environment/situation. Is it demonstrating "free will"? Again, it comes back to exactly what you mean by "free".
Simples. 'The Power of Prayer' does not invoke an answer from the almighty. Simply, vocalising a problem, or feeling helps you understand it. I solve problems for a living. There is a saying 'A well defined problem is a framework for a solution'. Simply, when you vocalise and describe a personal problem (believers through prayer), you have to put feelings and emotions, into words, and then, things become a little more clear, rather than just nagging emotion. When you ask questions out loud, your subconscious listens too, different parts of your brain can work on the solution.
So when confronted with a particular problem, I read through the details, discuss it with a colleague, and then put it to one side for a day or two. Often, when I revisit, it seems clearer. My subconscious has done the hard work. Sometimes, I'll read through a problem, and just describe the problem out loud, as if I was talking to a colleague. Sometimes, and answer just pops into my head at some point later, like a computing batch job just completed. This is not the work of God, but different levels of my own consciousness.
Sure, it's a cop out to all the problems there are with God. Clearly you'd been struggling with these problems, and this was your proposed answer.
It's not an answer, it actually begs more questions, and introduces more logical problems.
Do you think the scientists push a button to induce the effect, and it summons God? ROFL!
Summons aliens to abduct people? ROFL!
It proves the experience is solely derived from brain function, it what it proves. It demonstrates that no matter how powerful the experience, it's a subjective one, and simply a matter of brain function. It eliminates God.
It means exactly that! If we humans make a machine to perform a task, and the machine works, and performs that task, we cannot say it is expressing free will in doing what we created it to do.
Same goes for god creating humans, except the machine (us) is a bit more complicated, and the understanding of the machine being a bit more complicated, but the principle holds.
How would I know that? The impression of free will does not mean we actually have it.
The devil is in the detail. Definitions are paramount.
It' simple, and I feel you are being obtuse again, and should be aware of this argument. If God created us, and knows exactly what we will do, given he knew what we would do _BEFORE_ he created us, he created us to perhaps commit what is labelled sin. It's hardly fair to cast the creations he made, knowing full well we would sin aside. We cannot be said to have free will therefore, and God is merely casting defective machinery aside, but into Hell, allegedly, if you believe in such.
Yeah you did.
What else was I supposed to base it on, divination?
You said 'He', then you backpeddled and added some 'non biological' reference, which was also unqualified. Flip Flop!
Not at all. You simply have to admit that you cannot know if God is a biological entity or not. Or justify your statement that God is not.
No we can't. Computers use programs, and programs are determined. We have pseudo-random number generating algorithms, usually time based, but computers cannot generate true random numbers.
That's just not true.
A combination or determinism and randomness = freedom? Seems odd to judge a soul based on predictable and unpredictable actions, .... God knows the predictable part, he created us to perform those acts,... and we are not in control of the random elements, ... so unless our soul in in control, how can a God judge it?
Also, your case for prediction of the model you propose is flawed. The outcome is predictable: within the limits we allow the randomness to affect the outcome. See, I like shooting James. I can't hit a perfect 10 every shot, little things can add up, wind, heartbeat, thermals distorting air, air pockets of differential temperature, all things I try to predict and control, but I cannot do perfectly. Doesn't mean I'm going to abandon my telescopic sights and rangefinder, because they don't give perfect results. They work well within their limits. As a scientist, you know we always quote errors of measurement, because we understand systems vary. All you a proposing is a system _designed_ to vary. We can still predict it's behaviour, within limits.
phlogistician:
Unfortunately, I'm getting the impression that in arguments over things like free-will, I'm considerably more well-read than you are. Have you taken any formal courses in philosophy? How much of the philosophical literature have you actually read on free will? Are you aware of the various compatibilist arguments for free will? Because at this stage I'm getting the impression you probably have never heard of combatibilism. This makes my job much harder here, because I simultaneously have to defend my statements about God and also try to educate you on basic philosophical issues. It would be better for you to go away and learn some philosophy first, before raising those kinds of issues.
That all depends on exactly what you mean by "free will". Like I said before.
So you don't know whether we have it or not.
But that's beside the point. Your point was that you were trying to make an argument that omniscience somehow nullifies the possibility of free will. You haven't established that.
Tell me how the compatibilists define "free" in this context. Just so I know that you're aware of this argument, you understand. I don't want to waste time telling you stuff you already know.
Or, failing that, please tell me why the compatibilist argument doesn't work.
We make the choices, not God. Also, you haven't asked me about sin yet.
Why would it be unfair to hold you responsible for actions that you choose to carry out - whether those actions are "free" or not? I mean, the law does that all the time. When you choose to go over the speed limit in your car, the law holds you responsible for that. Why should God be different?
"No I didn't."
"Yes you did."
"You smell!"
"You're fat!"
"Your mum eats hamburgers!"
"I hate you."
The evidence is in the thread. Enough schoolyard nonsense.
If God is a biological entity, he is complete unlikely any other biological entity that I am aware of. Good enough for you?
Yes they can. Hook one up to radioactive source if you like.
Even without "true" randomness, many physical systems are unpredictable. You're heard of chaos theory, haven't you? We know what drives the weather, but our ability to predict it is limited.
Depends how you define "freedom". Determinism alone may be compatible with freedom.
Unfortunately, I'm getting the impression that in arguments over things like free-will, I'm considerably more well-read than you are. Have you taken any formal courses in philosophy? How much of the philosophical literature have you actually read on free will? Are you aware of the various compatibilist arguments for free will? Because at this stage I'm getting the impression you probably have never heard of combatibilism. This makes my job much harder here, because I simultaneously have to defend my statements about God and also try to educate you on basic philosophical issues. It would be better for you to go away and learn some philosophy first, before raising those kinds of issues.
That all depends on exactly what you mean by "free will". Like I said before.
So you don't know whether we have it or not.
But that's beside the point. Your point was that you were trying to make an argument that omniscience somehow nullifies the possibility of free will. You haven't established that.
Tell me how the compatibilists define "free" in this context. Just so I know that you're aware of this argument, you understand. I don't want to waste time telling you stuff you already know.
Or, failing that, please tell me why the compatibilist argument doesn't work.
We make the choices, not God. Also, you haven't asked me about sin yet.
Why would it be unfair to hold you responsible for actions that you choose to carry out - whether those actions are "free" or not? I mean, the law does that all the time. When you choose to go over the speed limit in your car, the law holds you responsible for that. Why should God be different?
"No I didn't."
"Yes you did."
"You smell!"
"You're fat!"
"Your mum eats hamburgers!"
"I hate you."
The evidence is in the thread. Enough schoolyard nonsense.
If God is a biological entity, he is complete unlikely any other biological entity that I am aware of. Good enough for you?
Yes they can. Hook one up to radioactive source if you like.
Even without "true" randomness, many physical systems are unpredictable. You're heard of chaos theory, haven't you? We know what drives the weather, but our ability to predict it is limited.
Depends how you define "freedom". Determinism alone may be compatible with freedom.
Would you please expand on this?
I think I'm inclined to disagree. I view one's personal headspace as entirely free ground.
But I'd like to know why you find it offensive that people practice self-deception?
I mean, if they are deceiving others, that's a whole different ball of wax, of course.
If it's done and dusted, just give me you learned definition of free will please.
And I would argue, nobody does.
Yes I have. I established that complexity is not an argument for free choice. Keep up.
Because compatilibilism is a belief, not a proof?
We make choices. I agree. Based upon stimuli, which trigger determined and random events. I think you need to define 'free will' because I don't think we possess it, so yet again, I can't really define something I don't believe exists.
Because it would be like scrapping a vending machine for selling candy bars, just like it was designed to do.
Well, I do not believe in free will, so I see the actions of people driven by determined, and random factors.
That's a lame analogy and you _should_ know it. The difference being the law is not omniscient. The difference being that the law did not create us, knowing how we would turn out beforehand. The law is reactive,... God allegedly knows the future!
Yes it is in the thread. You used the term 'He', then retracted it, then asked which if I'd prefer you to use the term. You're not exactly consistent here.
No, I'd rather you retract the statement entirely as you just cannot know.
Then that's not the computer calculating a random number, but assigning a value to a random event. The is a difference. A prescribed program CANNOT create a random number.
Which is exactly my point. The human nervous system suffers from quantum effects at the synapses,.. so there is random input. On a large scale, things are more deterministic. But a program (or for example, us, the program that God wrote) cannot create random events, but merely have it's output altered, within limits, by them.
I disagree. The Determinism, is just that. Like I said, if you make a machine to perform a task, and you switch it on, and it does what you designed it to, is it exhibiting free will?
Not all all. You might lie to yourself that your behaviour, while despicable to others, is acceptable, but deep down know you can get away with it somehow. This is often why serial offenders get sloppy,... they want to get caught, because they are tormented by differing opinions inside their own mind, the urge to do wrong, vs knowing what is right. Being true to yourself is of utmost importance. How can you be honest in dealings with others if you delude yourself?
Did I say it was offensive?
Who is a two faced person?
I haven't said it is.
Why are you asking me? It's about what believers claim, nothing to do with me.
It's a point of failure if a claim is made, and retracted
Apart from when he used the word 'He'.
I never said that.
Go read the argument about a machine created to perform a task. If you don't get it, keep reading it.
Omniscience is the fly in that ointment.
Mind reader are you? I do not have an idea of what your god is, no. See, that would mean that some of the description I have been given stuck in my head as being reasonable. None of it was. So no, I have no 'preconceived' idea.
Nope. Omniscience does not imply control.
Yes.
Yes, because you told lies about me. Would you rather I just report you in future?
that's great, but has absolutely nothing to do with what happened to me and i'll tell you why, and then you won't care, because no matter what, you'll only believe what you want to believe. how much do you want to bet on that?
i wasn't in some quandry about omniscience when i received that answer nor had i ever been. i really don't care how god is omniscient, and that wasn't the topic of conversation. this was the conversation...
god, "davey havok is joey spagota"
me, "what?"
god, "davey havok is joey spagota"
some background...davey havok is the lead singer of the bands afi and blaqk audio. joey spagota is my childhood imaginery friend that i hadn't thought about in a long long time.
me, "but davey wasn't even alive back then?"
granted, that was a really stupid question on my part.
god, "there is no time here".
now then, does it matter to you at all that the explanation you entirely made up (based on some form of projection) is entirely not applicable here? no, of course it doesn't matter to you. all that matters to you is that you continue to believe whatever the fuck you want to believe. right?
clearly? uh, no. i have never entertained that struggle, and have never testified to entertaining that struggle. you fucking made it up out of the clear blue sky and attributed it to my experience in order to erroneously rationalize your own BELIEFS. which are incorrect. now who's dishonest?
no it really doesn't, and for someone who supposedly solves problems for a living, it should be obvious. if you remove time as a constraint, you can then be aware of what happens in our perceived future without directing our perceived future. it's quite simple really. you just have to get your ego out of the way.
no, no, and no. if the brain function is induced in a lab, then what induces it outside the lab?
Riiiight, and perfectly well balanced healthy people wig out and have visions. I don't think so, Stress does funny things to people. Or you may just have an underlying condition.
You've catalogued periods of stress and strife in your life right here at SF. I'm not making stuff up, just joining the dots.
You just deconstructed the entire Universe there. You can't just remove time.
In my perception of time and the Universe, I don't even think of myself being in it,... rather, I think of the birth of the Universe from a singularity, the separation or matter and energy, ponder Baryon asymmetry and anisotropy, formation of clouds of matter, the swirling patterns induced by gravity,... the formation of stars, the Chandrasekhar limit, and supernovae, and the formation of 2nd generation stars. All the really interesting stuff happened long before life evolved. All of these events, guided via entropy, and the 'arrow of time'. You can't just dispense with time, and to assert so, is rather ludicrous.
The mental aberration can be induced in the lab. It happens due to other reasons, explained in the link I gave. The effects of the lab experiment are explained here. Although I've liked to Persinger's studies before, and it seems you've wantonly ignored them.