Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[wynn]

Yet the switch would not be, as you explained earlier, a matter of CHOICE - it's just the (inevitable, sole possible) outcome of the circumstances.

If there is only one possible outcome then where lies the choice?

Choosing is a conscious activity and it applies when a person is in a situation where they deem there are options and they must pick one.


It would be a category mistake to try to apply the concept of choice on a neurological level, or on any other level or in any category that is not within the scope of the person's conscious awareness.


We even have a choice in our desires, values and beliefs: but only when and to the extent we consciously discuss them; but not otherwise.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That you think my argument here indicates that we don't have free will, to me indicates that you believe free will would only apply if we had no desires etc.

If we had no desires then free will would be worthless.

It is precisely when we act in line with our desires that we feel we have free will.
It is also when we act in line with our desires that we feel the most happy.

People feel constrained, limited, as if stripped of their free will when they cannot act on their desires. And they are unhappy in such cases.

Mmm, okay. I think I see what you're getting at. But this is, again, a different topic, isn't it?

Apparently not, because it does cause unease, so it must be addressed somehow, and in a way that doesn't cause additional unease.

No, I meant "fruitless" as in: we can never get at the right answer.

Just borrow it at a library.

And if it's any good I'll still have to buy one.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Choosing is a conscious activity and it applies when a person is in a situation where they deem there are options and they must pick one.

It would be a category mistake to try to apply the concept of choice on a neurological level, or on any other level or in any category that is not within the scope of the person's conscious awareness.

If the "choice" was dictated on a neurological level we're robots, neh?

We even have a choice in our desires, values and beliefs: but only when and to the extent we consciously discuss them; but not otherwise.

Do we? Given my comment above...

 

[wynn]

If we had no desires then free will would be worthless.

It could not apply.

Mmm, okay. I think I see what you're getting at. But this is, again, a different topic, isn't it?

I don't think so. Our happiness is inextricably linked with (our notions of) free will.

People who believe they have no free will, are usually unhappy.

No, I meant "fruitless" as in: we can never get at the right answer.

That is strong agnosticism, which I categorically reject.

And if it's any good I'll still have to buy one.

Well ... such is the fate of good books.

 

[wynn]

If the "choice" was dictated on a neurological level we're robots, neh?

Choice does not apply on a neurological level.


A person may be racist, but their cells are not racist. No reasonable person would try to test a person's cells for racism.

 

[wynn]

We may be utterly convinced that we have free will, and could have picked a pear if we'd so decided at the time, but the "reality" would be that we really couldn't have.

Then that is reasoning based on a category mistake.

Ooh! Different topic altogether, isn't it?

Not at all.
It's about us as such, as humans, the things that drive us, the things we drive etc.

And, then again, if we're dissatisfied with what we do, what "options" do we have?

When we feel dissatisfied, we also have an idea of what we should have done or how things should be.

Dissatisfaction doesn't exist in isolation, but always in relation to some standard of "how things should be; how things would be if they were good."

And once we are aware of those standards, there will also be some idea of what we can do to act accordingly.

Your argument (the one quoted) also shows that god is not required for us to have no free will (which has been argued on Sci before now - we're just "robots") but, interestingly (although far short of being proven) could also argue against god's existence.

Arguments for or against God's existence as such are absurd.
But we may argue for or against specific qualities that are sometimes attributed to God.

If we HAD been created without choice surely a benevolent god would have made sure we were happy with whatever we do since we can't change it anyway. Making us capable of ending up in situations )through no actual decision/ fault of our own) that we dislike is somewhat sadistic.
"Yeah, sure you're miserable, and sure it was inevitable that you'd end like this. I want you to suffer".

So the corollary seems to be that since we suffer, God either doesn't exist, or exists but is not benevolent?

 

[Dywyddyr]

It could not apply.

Exactly. We wouldn't want anything and wouldn't care enough to make a decision when presented with one.

I don't think so. Our happiness is inextricably linked with (our notions of) free will.
People who believe they have no free will, are usually unhappy.

Or maybe they are because they've decided that whatever they do is already decided and they're "along for the ride". Nothing is their responsibility.

That is strong agnosticism, which I categorically reject.

Hmm, on the grounds of...?

Choice does not apply on a neurological level.
A person may be racist, but their cells are not racist. No reasonable person would try to test a person's cells for racism.

No one would, YET. It could be a possibility (long shot).
After all, we don't blame the guy who ambles down the street swearing at everyone, because we know that Tourette's wasn't a personal choice. How far above "cellular/ neurological" is Tourette's?
If we ever become capable of digging down far enough into the structure and operation of the brain/ mind/ body synergy may we not find out after all that we are preset from (or before) conception?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Then that is reasoning based on a category mistake.

I'll work on that one.

Not at all.
It's about us as such, as humans, the things that drive us, the things we drive etc.

But doesn't address the logic in the paradox.

When we feel dissatisfied, we also have an idea of what we should have done or how things should be.

Ah no. When I said what options that was IF my earlier argument applied:
any "choice" is the sole possible outcome.

Arguments for or against God's existence as such are absurd.
But we may argue for or against specific qualities that are sometimes attributed to God.

Ha! Yes. Slap me.

So the corollary seems to be that since we suffer, God either doesn't exist, or exists but is not benevolent?

Not quite: since we suffer because we were set up to suffer then...

 

[wynn]

Exactly. We wouldn't want anything and wouldn't care enough to make a decision when presented with one.

In other words, we might as well be dead.

I don't think so. Our happiness is inextricably linked with (our notions of) free will.
People who believe they have no free will, are usually unhappy.

Or maybe they are because they've decided that whatever they do is already decided and they're "along for the ride". Nothing is their responsibility.

I don't understand?
Do you mean that fatalists are happy, or that they are unhappy?

That is strong agnosticism, which I categorically reject.

Hmm, on the grounds of...?

Strong agnosticism seems to require omniscience. I don't presume myself to be omniscient.

Choice does not apply on a neurological level.
A person may be racist, but their cells are not racist. No reasonable person would try to test a person's cells for racism.

No one would, YET. It could be a possibility (long shot).

First of all, the future is a poor consolation for the present.

After all, we don't blame the guy who ambles down the street swearing at everyone, because we know that Tourette's wasn't a personal choice. How far above "cellular/ neurological" is Tourette's?
If we ever become capable of digging down far enough into the structure and operation of the brain/ mind/ body synergy may we not find out after all that we are preset from (or before) conception?

This kind of reasoning presumes that the body, the material, is all there is to humans - and that social interactions, learning are ultimately irrelevant, or useful only if they "manage" the material.

After all, we don't blame the guy who ambles down the street swearing at everyone, because we know that Tourette's wasn't a personal choice. How far above "cellular/ neurological" is Tourette's?

I don't think a permissive treatment of people is universal, and I also think some forms of permissiveness are social fashion rather than anything else.
Then there are kinds of apparent permissiveness that have nothing to do with acknowledging that a person has a "disorder" and "isn't to be blamed for what they do." Ie. some people simply do not engage in justifying the actions of others, period.

 

[Dywyddyr]

In other words, we might as well be dead.

That hadn't occurred to me. But I suppose that you're essentially right.

I don't understand?
Do you mean that fatalists are happy, or that they are unhappy?

Sorry, I could have expressed it better. Thus:
Or maybe they are: because they've decided that...
E.g. happy. They've abrogated all responsibility.

Strong agnosticism seems to require omniscience. I don't presume myself to be omniscient.

You're agnostic about your agnosticism?
Actually I was only looking at in the sense of unknown rather than unknowable, hence my question. De rien.

First of all, the future is a poor consolation for the present.

And there's no point getting excited about Christmas?
Yep, I can see your point.

This kind of reasoning presumes that the body, the material, is all there is to humans - and that social interactions, learning are ultimately irrelevant, or useful only if they "manage" the material.

Aha! You see? The flaws have been presented. I'm learning.

I don't think a permissive treatment of people is universal, and I also think some forms of permissiveness are social fashion rather than anything else.
Then there are kinds of apparent permissiveness that have nothing to do with acknowledging that a person has a "disorder" and "isn't to be blamed for what they do." Ie. some people simply do not engage in justifying the actions of others, period.

Again, you got me.

"Damn! There's always something."
Sherlock Holmes.

 

[wynn]

But doesn't address the logic in the paradox.

You'll have to explain this. Why not?

So the corollary seems to be that since we suffer, God either doesn't exist, or exists but is not benevolent?

Not quite: since we suffer because we were set up to suffer then...

But life isn't just suffering and nothing else.

The argument is sometimes made that suffering is merely an accompanying phenomenon to learning and toward greater happiness.


You seem to imply that we could only consider God to be benevolent if there would be no suffering.

But the fact is that we can analyze suffering further. Suffering isn't merely a monolithic phenomenon.

Some observations:
- people have very different desires, there is often a conflict of interests resulting in disputes and also war,
- some people are willing to undergo some strain in order to achieve their goals,
- some people, when disease and natural disasters strike, are not unhappy.

It does not follow that if X happens, every person would be unhappy / would suffer. It is not true that everyone who gets cancer, suffers. And it is also not true that those people who have cancer and yet don't suffer, would be psychotic or some such; no, they seem to be very simple, humble people for whom life and happiness don't stop just because they got sick.

So how do you explain the fact that such people exist?
What does the existence of such people say about God, as far as His benevolence or malevolence are concerned?

 

[Dywyddyr]

You'll have to explain this. Why not?

Because the paradox exists whether we're satisfied or not.

You seem to imply that we could only consider God to be benevolent if there would be no suffering.

No no no.
We seem to be (in the case under discussion) set up to suffer because of "choices" that weren't actually choices. I.e. we were pre-programmed to put ourselves into situations that make us unhappy and suffer.

It does not follow that if X happens, every person would be unhappy / would suffer. It is not true that everyone who gets cancer, suffers. And it is also not true that those people who have cancer and yet don't suffer, would be psychotic or some such; no, they seem to be very simple, humble people for whom life and happiness don't stop just because they got sick.

So how do you explain the fact that such people exist?
What does the existence of such people say about God, as far as His benevolence or malevolence are concerned?

So god applied a one cure suits all solution?
I'm not talking so much about disease and natural disasters but situations. Meh, my brain's mush at the moment.
Please see the comment that's italicised.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I have given it some thought, and because you created the path that God sees it is always you that makes that path, nobody can predetermine it but yourself. When God has knowledge from Omnipresence he can only see your Free Will. His memories are not stored in linear order like our memories. When he sees us eat the apple he has a future memory timestamp. We may remember the Death of Elvis Presley, God has memories that jump over us. So we chose the apple, God watched, he went back to the past taking a future memory with him. When
God remembers us choosing the apple, the memory completely misses out the present which we are living in. We never choose the eclair as that would require us to live in the same timeline as God, which is all timelines.

 

[wellwisher]

In the past, our scientific perception of nature was analog. Today everything is digital. The main difference between the two, is analog uses continuous functions to describe reality. With digital, we use discontinuous functions. The value of digital and discontinuous functions was it helped make computer memory go further, while also helping to get more out of bandwidth limitations.

If we use JPEG instead of raw camera data, we can save space and can move the data around faster because we lowered required bandwidth. But the JPEG is an approximation of the continuous function. This it is an approximation there will be degradation in the original image. We need to run it through another program to try to make up for this loss.

This change is behind the change in perception of modern culture. It is based on a digital approximation to continuous reality. The compression and decompression of digital reality, explains the need for chaos and random since digital approximations and its reassembly, is subject to random loss.

God was not defined in terms of digital loss using approximation reality, since by definition God is a continuous function. The atheist POV is correct but within the context of a JPEG approximation reality in the digital age. But this perception of reality does not apply to continuous functions. It can only approximate this, but with chaos added to perception.

The proof of no god in the digital age is like comparing a JPEG to a raw picture file. The layman will not know the difference and can be fooled into thinking one is the same as the other. Since the JPEG is only an approximation of full reality; needed for fast data transmission in the information age, there will be things missing compared to the raw data. When we try to decompress this approximation, to fill that in, we add random, so the digital image appear contradictory to the original continuous function that had no such anomaly.

 

[wynn]

Because the paradox exists whether we're satisfied or not.

No, it doesn't. When you're satisfied, you're not worried (about paradoxes and such).

No no no.
We seem to be (in the case under discussion) set up to suffer because of "choices" that weren't actually choices. I.e. we were pre-programmed to put ourselves into situations that make us unhappy and suffer.

Even if this is the case, there is also the fact to consider that suffering is inconstant; it comes and it goes.
Moreover, we only have limited awareness of suffering; even the most depressed person suffers only about an hour a day altogether.

There is a lot more to life than just suffering.

We are also happy and satisfied sometimes.
Will you also say we were pre-programmed to put ourselves into situations that make us happy and satisfied?


Then we also have the ability to learn and change. There is no guarantee that if we have done something a hundred times, we will do it for the one hundred and first time.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I have given it some thought, and because you created the path that God sees it is always you that makes that path, nobody can predetermine it but yourself. When God has knowledge from Omnipresence he can only see your Free Will. His memories are not stored in linear order like our memories. When he sees us eat the apple he has a future memory timestamp. We may remember the Death of Elvis Presley, God has memories that jump over us. So we chose the apple, God watched, he went back to the past taking a future memory with him. When
God remembers us choosing the apple, the memory completely misses out the present which we are living in. We never choose the eclair as that would require us to live in the same timeline as God, which is all timelines.

Still wrong, as has been explained.
The discussion is omniscience, which is noted in the bible as being in addition to omnipresence.
I have already explained that HOWEVER the knowledge is obtained then the future is fixed.

 

[Dywyddyr]

In the past, our scientific perception of nature was analog. Today everything is digital.

Nonsense.
Our perceptions remain analogue.

And the rest of your post is meaningless off-topic word salad. As usual.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, it doesn't. When you're satisfied, you're not worried (about paradoxes and such).

Not being worried about a paradox doesn't mean the paradox doesn't exist.

Even if this is the case, there is also the fact to consider that suffering is inconstant; it comes and it goes.

Granted. But why suffer at all?

Moreover, we only have limited awareness of suffering; even the most depressed person suffers only about an hour a day altogether.

Only an hour?

Will you also say we were pre-programmed to put ourselves into situations that make us happy and satisfied?
Sure, it works both ways.

Then we also have the ability to learn and change. There is no guarantee that if we have done something a hundred times, we will do it for the one hundred and first time.

A preprogrammed "ability" that leads to the preprogrammed "change".

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Still wrong, as has been explained.
The discussion is omniscience, which is noted in the bible as being in addition to omnipresence.
I have already explained that HOWEVER the knowledge is obtained then the future is fixed.

If you had omnipresence you would have Omniscience. You wouldn't work out somebody's future when you could just look at it. And as I have explained, you have to stick with the powers that lead to Free Will, so you have to stick with Omnipresence which gives you Omniscience. Anyway, I don't think God has ever been described as working on a problem.. just knowing the answer to that problem, and that is to see all, to see all things at all time. Omnipresence. If you keep saying you don't want Omnipresence you sound like you think it has Free Will. I already removed Coercion for you, and you keep wanting the opening post altered to fit your no free will category.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If you had omnipresence you would have Omniscience.

So what?

The discussion is omniscience, which is noted in the bible as being in addition to omnipresence.

You wouldn't work out somebody's future when you could just look at it. And as I have explained, you have to stick with the powers that lead to Free Will

On the contrary, I have shown, and you have agreed, that it doesn't matter.
If someone has seen the future then your decision is fixed.

so you have to stick with Omnipresence which gives you Omniscience. Anyway, I don't think God has ever been described as working on a problem.. just knowing the answer to that problem, and that is to see all, to see all things at all time. Omnipresence.

Irrelevant. Again.

If you keep saying you don't want Omnipresence you sound like you think it has Free Will.

This is a fabrication on your part. HOWEVER the knowledge is obtained makes no difference. I have never stated that I "don't want omnipresence". Please try to avoid inventing a position I don't hold.

I already removed Coercion for you

Wrong. I have never called upon coercion. In fact I have specifically NOT USED IT and also shown that it isn't required.

and you keep wanting the opening post altered to fit your no free will category.

On the contrary, I have restricted myself to the OP, unlike you who persists in adding diversions such as time loops and omnipresence.