What does God do?

[Capracus]

Who said it did?

You did.

Yes, you're belief in hard determinism is why you don't believe in a God, and likely don't believe in real free will either.

Apparently you assume that a nondeterministic existence grants free will.

Neither can deterministic interpretations be demonstrated as factual. Macro analogues do not suffice, unless you really really want them to.

If determinism rules behavior in our perceivable reality, and theoretically in the imperceivable, then it would more sense to stick with what we know.

 

[Vociferous]

You did.

Where? You seem to be reading things that aren't there.

Apparently you assume that a nondeterministic existence grants free will.

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the fact that determinism and disbelief in free will very often go hand in hand.

If determinism rules behavior in our perceivable reality, and theoretically in the imperceivable, then it would more sense to stick with what we know.

So belief without evidence?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So belief without evidence?

Belief needs no evidence and grows from solicitation of reference to observation of all things that support the belief àlthough observation is now moroscipic but presented as impartial and a true representation of selected facts.

Alex

 

[Capracus]

Where? You seem to be reading things that aren't there.

So when you write things like:

But we do have activity that is often contrasted with that of nature. Man's activity often does intervene in the otherwise natural order of things. It looks like there is something (free will) that is out of place and exerts itself on the existing nature.

And then follow it with:

Since compatibilist free will seems to pretty much redefine free will so much that it is effectively eliminated, incompatibilist free will is the only one that could represent an actual intervention. Free will is only compatible with hard determinism because it is doesn't actually intervene in deterministic events.

Interpreting your statements as associating free will and determinism or lack thereof is the reader's imagination?

So belief without evidence?

Belief based on reasonable extrapolation.

 

[Vociferous]

So when you write things like:

But we do have activity that is often contrasted with that of nature. Man's activity often does intervene in the otherwise natural order of things. It looks like there is something (free will) that is out of place and exerts itself on the existing nature.​

And then follow it with:

Since compatibilist free will seems to pretty much redefine free will so much that it is effectively eliminated, incompatibilist free will is the only one that could represent an actual intervention. Free will is only compatible with hard determinism because it is doesn't actually intervene in deterministic events.​

Interpreting your statements as associating free will and determinism or lack thereof is the reader's imagination?

"Associating free will and determinism"? That's what compatibilism does to effectively make free will deterministic by redefinition.
Incompatibilism doesn't associate the two.
So yes, since I put forward an incompatibilist free will, associating that with determinism is the reader's imagination.

Belief based on reasonable extrapolation.

Subjectively reasonable extrapolation, but not evidence.

 

[Capracus]

"Associating free will and determinism"? That's what compatibilism does to effectively make free will deterministic by redefinition.
Incompatibilism doesn't associate the two.
So yes, since I put forward an incompatibilist free will, associating that with determinism is the reader's imagination.

The association was made when you contrasted the two, and that wasn’t imagined, it was presented in the composition of your posts. So rather than continually shuffling onion peelings, why don’t you just explain how you imagine free will to work in the case of gods and men.

Subjectively reasonable extrapolation, but not evidence.

Go ahead and extrapolate so we can compare subjectivity.

 

[Musika]

Musika:


Would you agree then, that most theists believe in a similarly "dumbed down" version of God?

Most theists don't take extraneous sojourns into philosophy. This doesn't necessarily render them guilty of dumbing down God. If however someone plays down God's existence or nature one has to look at whether it is intentional or is arising from a lack of knowledge on the subject. Of course atheists have a specific intention to implement but there are plenty of examples within theism eg.
“Lord make me pure but not yet.”

Take the example of prayers, for instance. Expecting God to micro-manage things at the level of individual human lives, in response to pleas by insignificant human beings, seems to ignore the omnimax personality, does it not? Especially as the omnimax personality presumably already has some mysterious but well-ordered plan for all of us.

There is a ton of questions why you would think omni status destroys or undermines God's personal existence .... but straight off the cuff, a God that does everything except interfere with your free will is already micro managing everything. If our freewill was also something he was micromanaging, then yes, prayer (or even mere obedience or rebellion) would be meaningless.

I accept that God, with whatever his plans are, would more likely be simply implementing his existing strategy rather than "intervening" to change his plans on an ad-hoc basis (in response to a prayer, for example).

Its not clear why or how ad hoc planning is a problem for an omnimax personality ... or for that matter, why there would be a need for such a personality to function beyond ad hoc planning. As far as this universe is concerned, it is primarily a stage for the living entity to express their independence from God. Everything else is a prop.

Actually I think a lot of these problems you are posing arise from extrapolating our own existence as means to gauge Gods. Qualitatively we can talk of similarity but quantitatively it is not even remotely feasible. We are unlimitedly limited and God is unlimitedly unlimited. Contingency plans are the length and breadth of our existence. Try to carry that same thinking in understanding God and you are simply bringing an erroneous foundation for further ideas.

This whole idea about "miracles" would seem to be unrealistic nonsense then, most likely. Do you agree? Why would God "intervene" in such a way by performing a "miracle"? Such a thing would never be necessary for the omnimax personality. And given that God doesn't want to give himself away (as you say he doesn't) then doing miracles would make no sense for him.

It's not that God has an agenda to not give Himself away, it is that He is reciprocating with our desire to be independant. Technically this is impossible so it requires an element of illusion and a special type of creation. Put those two together, and this is what you get. God not revealing himself is Him reciprocating with our agenda. If God decides to interact with someone in a "miraculous" fashion, he is not so rude or clumsy so as to do it in a fashion that rains on the parade of the atheistically inclined.

And yet, many theists seem to expect miracles.

You would have to be clear on what you are lodging in the name of a miracle. Perhaps you think a theist attributing any little development in this world to a miracle as absurd, but it arises from an understanding that God does everything.

On the one hand we have that the workings of the world are explainable by human beings, with reference to natural laws etc. On the other hand, we have that the workings of the world can only be explained by positing an all-powerful, conscious and purposeful supernatural entity.

Why complicate things when nothing in the workings of the world suggests that such added complication is necessary?

There is also nothing in the world to suggest it is unnecessary. The moment you start introducing an understanding to make God unnecessary to this world on the strength of scientific observation is the same moment you start introducing an element of complication. Such is the battleground of dialectics that utilize suggestions.

I understand that Occam's razor is predicated on the fundamentally aesthetic idea that things ought to be simple (or, at least, not more complicated than they need to be).

Are theists just messier thinkers than atheists, then?

It's just begging the question. To say that the field of scientific observation would have less problems if there was no God simply arises from suggestion that God is unnecessary. Others who work with the exact same information to support the exact opposite suggestion have different ideas on what renders things unnecessarily complicated.

As it stands, however, scientific observation functions independently of atheism or theism. You might as well be talking about whether God's existence or nonexistence makes baseball more or less complicated.

I appreciate that it's possible that underneath it all there's a God pulling the levers. But as a matter of practicality, that fact (if it is a fact) makes no meaningful difference to anybody's life, on a day-to-day basis, as far as I can tell.

If you expect to bridge that gap of where God precisely meets the material energy at the point of direction as an instance of being practical, then yes, distinctions will be meaningless. You might as well be talking about the end of empiricism, when scientists know everything. "God of the gaps" or "science of the gaps" are both equal in that they allude to something we can't establish.

Here's an idea: it could be simply pragmatism on my part. My world is complex enough without having to think about any possible supernatural causes that add nothing to practical effects of the natural causes that I am aware of.

If God is only a worker behind the scenes pulling the levers of nature, then I can happily live my life without worrying about anything "extra" that God might want or do - because God isn't doing anything "extra" that I experience, nor is he communicating any special expectations to me. Pragmatically, my life is the same whether or not this kind of God exists.

I might well be happy to acknowledge that God is enabling existence, or some such thing, but existence is a given whether or not that is true. Why, then, should I spend my time worrying about that God, as theists do? There's nothing to be gained that I don't already have, in that scheme.

Sure, that's fine.
As to how successful you will be, that will be determined by the parameters of "your world" and your power to secure it.
Will a Jehovah's witness knocking on your door ruin your day?
Or an article in a prominent scientific journal ridiculing the notion of science supporting atheism?

I take your point. A similar point has been made that any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Actually my point was that it would not be impossible for the tribespeople. The only method they can come to understand the sovereignty they are currently existing under is on the terms set down by the Indian government. They do not have the capacity to engineer their own "bottom/up" method.

Following from what I wrote above, one question would be: why should the Andaman Islanders concern themselves with this "India" that you speak of? Speaking pragmatically, from their perspective, it has no visible effect on their lives.

I guess some people, disenfranchised with post industrial civilization and driven by romantic notions, may envy their life and cynicism may even prompt them to say there is nothing in our civilization worth knowing. But most people would be unaccustomed to their hardships and see entering into such a lifestyle as willfull ignorance.

I think it would be more a case of stopping certain activities, such as ceasing to explore the idea that God might be there, despite all appearances.

So how much time and energy do you devote to exploring the idea that God exists?

For most, I don't think God is completely expunged. Even Dawkins, a poster-boy atheist for the theists, leaves the door open on God.

I would venture that most atheists seek positive evidence for God, rather than the kind of invisible God-behind-the-scenes or God-of-the-gaps idea that you are putting up here.

The problem is that you are looking with a methodology that can only offer gaps or suggestions, regardless whether one attributes those gaps to science or God. You will no more discover God than discover the end of knowledge.

Postulation comes closest, but then postulation is not knowledge. It can be a means to knowledge (as the quote says). Or it can lead to error.

Of course knowledge is only valuable if it doesn't lead to error ... so if you are bringing postulation over that threshold, you are bringing one of the other pramanas

texts identify six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths: perception,inference, comparison and analogy, postulation, derivation from circumstances, non-perception, negative/cognitive proof and word, testimony of past or present reliable experts.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It's not that God has an agenda to not give Himself away, it is that He is reciprocating with our desire to be independant.

Firstly I am enjoying reading the posts herein as they are well considered and the ideas expressed interesting.
What I ask is how it is that you or anyone can make a statement such as the one above that I quoted as surely no one can know what you suggest.

texts identify six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths: perception,inference, comparison and analogy, postulation, derivation from circumstances, non-perception, negative/cognitive proof and word, testimony of past or present reliable experts.

Are all these not merely replaced with speculation as the application of any one I suggest would bring us no closer to knowing the mind of God.
And although on a day I am feeling relaxed I could be gentle and accept the premise of there being a God I dont think I could ever accept that humans could know anything about God such that theists can be so specific in what God expects from humans or indeed that he is interested in humans at all.

Alex

 

[Musika]

(continued...)


Possibly we're getting off track here. Atheism isn't equivalent to a belief in chaos.

iirc, this whole chaos vs order as a parrallel to atheism vs theism was brought up because you expressed a problem with "order" being nuanced with theistic undertones.

I was, although ID, at least in its most widely-publicised form in the United States, has been shown to be little more than a front for garden-variety creationism, in practice. The uncorrupted idea of ID itself isn't inherently flawed, but it's just more speculation of the kind you discussed previously.

It is not the first nor the last time american culture has biased a scientific understanding. ID covers a broader field in terms of topic and history than creationism.

You've pretty much demolished the Abrahamic religions right there. All of them claim that God specifically and directly revealed himself to human beings.

As far as I am aware, even in those traditions it is established that God only revealed Himself to suitably qualified persons. Its not like His audience was for anyone and everyone.

When I talk about available information, I mean objectively-verifiable information, not subjective experiences or impressions. I am, of course, aware that many theists claim to have direct subjective experiences of God. (Interesting, none of our resident atheists have said "God talks to me regularly. That's what he is doing in the present." I think I know why.)

It's not that we all know that theists are deluded. Rather, we all know that theists have nothing to offer in the way of hard evidence to show that they aren't deluded. This isn't a belief that atheists have. It's just stating an observed fact, which should by rights be uncontroversial to theists. Suggest it to them and many of them tend to get upset, though.

What would this hard evidence look like?

You might believe that there are supernatural entities or forces other than God/gods. But I'm splitting hairs.

Would such a belief require a different epistemological state than those who would not believe in them?

As far as this site goes, it seems that such people offer news reports and online vids, so there doesn't appear to be an epistemological divide (its not like they have powers or a state of being to know things others do not).

I disagree.

I recognise that I don't (yet) have a complete explanation of my own existence. But the assertion that necessary cause won't provide one eventually is just one more suggestion.

I should have added "the facts as they stand". Removing all suggestions from the picture, it remains incomplete.

 

[iceaura]

If however someone plays down God's existence or nature one has to look at whether it is intentional or is arising from a lack of knowledge on the subject.

There is no knowledge on the subject, other than that available to the atheistic.

Of course atheists have a specific intention to implement

That's not true, in general.

 

[Musika]

There is no knowledge on the subject, other than that available to the atheistic.

That's not true, in general.

Your first statement negates your second one

 

[iceaura]

Your first statement negates your second one

Nonsense.
You are making assumptions far beyond your knowledge.

 

[Musika]

Nonsense.
You are making assumptions far beyond your knowledge.

"There is no knowledge on the subject, other than that available to the atheistic"

 

[DaveC426913]

"There is no knowledge on the subject, other than that available to the atheistic"

I think you are misunderstanding what iceaura is saying.

 

[iceaura]

"There is no knowledge on the subject, other than that available to the atheistic"

Yes. And your argument is - - - - - ?

 

[scifes]

I understand that God might work in mysterious ways, doing something that is beyond our comprehension. But whatever he is doing, and however he is doing it, it ought to have some kind of measurable effect in the world, ought it not? If not, then what's the practical difference between this God who is active and one who is passive?

You keep insisting on taking two cases and insisting god got to be one or the second; god either created the world then sat back and let it do its thing. Or he actively interferes on regular or non regular basis to modify it.

Others have explained it very very well yet you seem to still can't see it from that perspective.

I think, at the core of it, is your application of spatial restrictions to god. And/or the (un?)intentional disabling of his Omni capabilities.


You seem to think of god as a scientist who writes code for a simulation, then runs it and observes how it behaves. And you're asking if while it's running, does he go in and modify some parameters while they're running, or does he just let it run its course and not interrupt it?

I think of god more of our state when we're in a state of lucid dreaming. You're self conscious, and you can will anything into existence. You ARE the world. You can create characters that behave a certain way, but you can alter it anytime you want. But even if you decide to not alter it their mere existence is due to your will, kind of already running in your subconscious.

 

[Michael 345]

You ARE the world. You can create characters that behave a certain way, but you can alter it anytime you want. But even if you decide to not alter it their mere existence is due to your will, kind of already running in your subconscious

You ARE the world. SO DID GOD - You can create characters that behave a certain way,?
SO DID GOD but you can alter ALTER it anytime you want HE WANTED? .
But even if SO DID GOD you decide to NOT TO ALTER not alter it their mere existence is due to your will, kind of already running in your subconscious

Really?

• Is god active?
• Sometimes active?
• Never active
• None of the above but
• ?????

Please list in plain English the ????? option

 

[spidergoat]

You seem to think of god as a scientist who writes code for a simulation, then runs it and observes how it behaves. And you're asking if while it's running, does he go in and modify some parameters while they're running, or does he just let it run its course and not interrupt it?

I don't think he's assuming anything about god. Either you can measure His effects or you can't. It's an argument from "where's the goddamn evidence?" .

 

[Vociferous]

The association was made when you contrasted the two, and that wasn’t imagined, it was presented in the composition of your posts. So rather than continually shuffling onion peelings, why don’t you just explain how you imagine free will to work in the case of gods and men.

You seem to have gotten lost in the weeds. Your original claim was that someone said indeterminism granted free will. Since no one did and we agree that determinism cannot, I'm not sure what you're on about.
Since incompatiblist free will is not compatible with materialist notions of how things work, and you seem to place determinism over all else, it seems like an exercise in futility with you.

 

[Capracus]

You seem to have gotten lost in the weeds. Your original claim was that someone said indeterminism granted free will. Since no one did and we agree that determinism cannot, I'm not sure what you're on about.
Since incompatiblist free will is not compatible with materialist notions of how things work, and you seem to place determinism over all else, it seems like an exercise in futility with you.

In this earlier post you claim that incompatablist (nondeterministic) free will to be a viable alternative to determinism.

Where is God in all this, then? Anywhere?

Incompatibilist free will.

Was this condition only meant to apply to God? Or to the rest of us as well?