Many people place "God" outside of space and time. If you consider "God" to be the creator of the universe, then this only makes sense. Personally, I don't know what to think of the idea. Seriously, the imagination is free to make up all kinds of shit. As such, I find the idea to be meaningless. Once someone decides to accept that there is an "outside of the universe", all bets are off.
For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.
- Thread starter phlogistician
- Start date
i didn't wig out and have a vision. we're not even talking about visions here. there was no stress initiating the multitude of events over a course of my life and there IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN UNDERLYING CONDITION. now stop making shit up! and then calling other people dishonest! god you're a real piece of work!
there are no dots. first of all, we weren't even talking about stress, we were talking about my alleged quandry regarding omniscience. since there was no quandry regarding omniscience, now you're grasping at stress. and if you look back at what i've testified to here on sciforums you'll find, that stress did not induce the experience. however, the experience induced stress. again, you're being completely dishonest.
you don't even know what time is!
yeah, it's not an "arrow", and as you've stated here, it only relates to the physical, as we in our ignorance understand it. congratulations.
i don't have epilepsy phlog. so would you please stop lying about that?
That however is just an expression of 'The god of gaps' argument. It's not a valid claim by any means.
People stop making sense when they say 'outside the universe' given the definition of 'Universe' is 'all that exists'. Things exist that are outside of the set of things that exist? I think not.
The episode you had was caused by something. Not god.
Stress, recreational drug use,.. sure there are dots.
It's a fundamental dimension. It's the direction of entropy.
I think you need to do some reading.
You may have suffered from it once. Temporal Love Epilepsy can have a trigger, maybe you only got triggered that one time.
On this, we agree.
phlog, don't you see that what you're doing here is speculation at best, and pulling stuff right out of your butt at worst? which makes you, by your own standards, dishonest, and by my standards, a hypocrite.
the fact is, you have no fucking idea what happened to me or how or why, but you insist on telling yourself and others that you do. it's nothing but your belief.
it's an unfounded belief. admit it, and then apologize.
the major flaw in that argument is humans are not machines.
get a clue, and move on phlo..
------
JamesR;
thanks for the new word James..compatibilists..had to look it up..
so those that argue strongly for compatibility are combatibilist?..(..boo..)
i didn't choose to forget to take care of my insurance ticket...(stupid DBS)
and i am with phlo on the computer generated random number. i have limited experience with programming, played with basic for awhile, thought about learning another, but never did..but i believe computers can not generate truly random numbers, i cannot argue this point,as my experience is limited.
so when you say
explain please.
----------------
not always. and not the answer you want.
this part i agree with.
do you fully understand everything there is to know about your own subconscious?
when you say 'this is not the work of God' that statement assumes that you know what God would do.
so i submit that it is not theist that you have a problem with, you are fighting against your own ideas about who/what God is, i will explain this more in response to another of your comments.
i don't see how it eliminates God..
----
your own ideas about who/what God is corrupting you.
it would be a point of failure if he did NOT retract it.
can you move on please..
<facepalm>
didn't say anything about 'my God'
didn't say anything about 'reasonable' either..
but it is still stuck in your head.
.
your inflections and demeanor betray you, every time someone presents an idea of who/what God is you throw it out cause it does not match your ideas of who/what God is.
if it is not true, then why does it bug you so?
do you have anger issues?
you think threats will make your point?
your not a stupid person phlo, you do have SOME good points..don't let a bad attitude keep you from wisdom.
-----
if it is true it will stand up to intelligent scrutiny.
Will it? If time and space are out the window, then so is everything else we think we understand. Including logic.
Why does knowing the future eliminate free will? Just because you know what is going to happen does not mean that choices were not made to get there. Just because the behavior is predictable does not mean you don't have free will. If I would meet you face to face I could prove this in about a second by doing random weird/mean crap that you couldn't possibly predict because I have free will (or maybe I would just stare at you menacingly without talking for while).
Granted, societal constraints limit this freedom unless you are willing to live outside that society (i.e. jail) to a rather large extent but this does not mean that I don't have the ability to pee on my desk work if I want. I just don't want because I like my job and I do not want to go to jail. My free will allows me to choose. Literally I can do anything within my grasp at anytime, I just have to willing to deal with the consequences of my actions.
Granted, societal constraints limit this freedom unless you are willing to live outside that society (i.e. jail) to a rather large extent but this does not mean that I don't have the ability to pee on my desk work if I want. I just don't want because I like my job and I do not want to go to jail. My free will allows me to choose. Literally I can do anything within my grasp at anytime, I just have to willing to deal with the consequences of my actions.
logic is a tool for inteligence, not the intelligence itself.
phlogistician:
How about I give you a compatibilist definition of it?
A compatibilist says that you have made a free choice if you would have done something different had you chosen to do something different.
Perhaps an example will help. Suppose you are confronted by a choice between two flavours of icecream for dessert - chocolate or strawberry. You decide to have the chocolate icecream, let's say. Then, according to the above definition of "free choice", you have made a free choice to have chocolate, because if you had chosen the strawberry instead then you would have had the strawberry.
In comparison, your choice would not be free if something would have prevented you from having the strawberry icecream even if you had chosen it. In that case, the freedom to choose chocolate or strawberry is an illusion, because you only really had the "choice" of chocolate.
Be careful when you apply the above definition. Note that it says nothing about determinism. It may be that the laws of physics, your past history, your brain configuration, and other things, determine that you will choose chocolate over strawberry. But it doesn't matter. According to the definition, your choice is still free, even if it is determined.
I don't remember arguing that complexity is an argument for free choice. But then, nor do I remember you establishing that it is not such an argument. Oh well.
Nobody has a proof of free will or determinism.
Free will is not incompatible with determinism. Unless you can show how it is, of course.
I never retracted the term "he". In fact, I have consistently used that pronoun to refer to God in this thread. I said you can read "he" as "he/she/it" if it makes you happier.
I'd rather you retract your claim that free will doesn't exist, as you just cannot know.
Quite possibly. Suppose you program a machine to choose between chocolate and strawberry icecream...
How about I give you a compatibilist definition of it?
A compatibilist says that you have made a free choice if you would have done something different had you chosen to do something different.
Perhaps an example will help. Suppose you are confronted by a choice between two flavours of icecream for dessert - chocolate or strawberry. You decide to have the chocolate icecream, let's say. Then, according to the above definition of "free choice", you have made a free choice to have chocolate, because if you had chosen the strawberry instead then you would have had the strawberry.
In comparison, your choice would not be free if something would have prevented you from having the strawberry icecream even if you had chosen it. In that case, the freedom to choose chocolate or strawberry is an illusion, because you only really had the "choice" of chocolate.
Be careful when you apply the above definition. Note that it says nothing about determinism. It may be that the laws of physics, your past history, your brain configuration, and other things, determine that you will choose chocolate over strawberry. But it doesn't matter. According to the definition, your choice is still free, even if it is determined.
I don't remember arguing that complexity is an argument for free choice. But then, nor do I remember you establishing that it is not such an argument. Oh well.
Nobody has a proof of free will or determinism.
Free will is not incompatible with determinism. Unless you can show how it is, of course.
I never retracted the term "he". In fact, I have consistently used that pronoun to refer to God in this thread. I said you can read "he" as "he/she/it" if it makes you happier.
I'd rather you retract your claim that free will doesn't exist, as you just cannot know.
Quite possibly. Suppose you program a machine to choose between chocolate and strawberry icecream...
Speculation? Not at all. The episode you experiences can be recreated in the lab. That completely negates the involvement of 'God', sorry.
Sure I do, you had some kind of mental episode, which is hard to diagnose via the WWW. You did not however, get a message from God.
Nope. Like I said, your experience has been recreated in the Lab. This experiment has been repeated over and over and good statistics are available. Your experience was just a statistic.
Who said that? Complex biological machines, but still machines. What else are we in your mind then?
I don't need a clue, the change of position is documented right here at SF. No 'clues' required, it's in black and white.
James, your definition of 'free will' could be applied to a coin toss. You really are going to have to do better than that.
you're a statistic.
i tell you what phlog, for over a decade now i've been out here listening to all the people just like you who lie through your teeth while you demand proof, and even though i know you're lying, i'd still love to give it to you, or rather, be of service to god in providing it for you. and i will. that doesn't mean you'll believe. there are some people who will remain in denial no matter what they're presented with, but i don't think you're one of them. imo you're egotistical, but not entirely retarded.
i think that something is going to happen to me that will bring attention to what i experienced and what i've testified to in regards to it. i don't know what exactly. but when it happens, people will be forced to investigate and take seriously, what i've been saying for a long time now. shame it has to come to that, but whatever.
when it does you'll be choking on crow with a big slice of humble pie for dessert.
it'll be hard for you, but you'll do it. and it'll be hard for me, but i'll do it for you.
Coins don't make choices. They aren't conscious.
Pretty weak reply, by the way. Keep at it.
Your definitions are weak, I can only work with what you give me.
You have boiled down free to a description of an event that applies to a coin toss. You now say coins aren't conscious, but I've already dispensed with the complexity argument for a machine (human brain) performing a task it was designed to do, so really, you got nothing.
Care to set a date for this event?
Will the world end?
Are you saying you are a prophet now?
You failed to comment on the definition I gave you.
In fact, as is becoming your habit, you avoided responding to the vast majority of my post. Instead, you posted an irrelevancy.
I'm beginning to think that you're incapable of facing issues head-on. Instead, you hide behind definitions and demand standards of proof that you don't abide by yourself. I guess it's because when you do attempt a substantive reply you so often reveal your lack of knowledge. So, better to hide your ignorance behind an assumed air of superiority.
Probably you haven't come across many people who've seen through your act before.
No. Like I said, a coin doesn't choose anything.
The posts are becoming rather fragmented James. If I don't respond to a point, it's because I see all this fragmentation as obfuscation, and would really rather concentrate on the core tenet.
All I want is for you to post a decent description of your God, but instead, there you are hiding behind the straw man you are busy stuffing. It's degenerated into you picking nits, instead of making statements that bear scrutiny.
Let's start again. Restate your current definition of God.