All loving or morally reprehensible?

[Mycroft]

He created people with free will according to christians, so why punish them for exercising that will he himself gave,not very forgiving.

Except that I have never found any evidence for free-will.

To me, the word 'free-will' implies action without cause. But everything is caused by something else.

Human beings, like everything else, are responding organisms. This means that you react to stimuli. Everything that makes you you (beyond DNA) is a result of a series of life-long and complex reaction to stimuli of various degrees.

If you see a plant you have never seen before and you touch it. If that plant stings you, your brain memorizes the configuration of that plant and the next time you see one, or something similar, you wont touch it again. Moreover, you'll warn others not to touch it. This is the simplest example of stimuli/reaction.

A simple experiment you can conduct to evidence the above is as follows: Try to do something now, a thought, a word, an action, anything that is not a result of having read this text.

This is one of the reasons why there is no such thing as human nature, or freedom of choice, or free-thinking, because all of these things are determined by experiences (stimuli) which determine behaviour (reaction). Sometimes the stimuli is subtle, sometimes the stimuli is one of several stimuli leading to a single reaction over time. Sometimes the stimuli causes unconscious reactions (subliminal messaging, for example).

Managing stimuli can produce managed reactions from human beings also. Nazi Germany is a good example of this. How the Nazi's managed all views and all propaganda (the stimuli) toward the Jews in order to generate the necessary reactions in the people to have made the holocaust possible (the language of Nazi Germany against the Jews is a fascinating line of research for students of language).

Another example of managed stimuli is in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. On every news channel, every radio channel, every newspaper and publication the words 'terror, terrorist, terrorist attack, war on terror, bin laden, Al Qaeda' were used in myriad but managed ways to produce enough support for an invasion of Afghanistan (the reaction).

Any thought currently running through your head (the reaction) is because of what you are reading now (stimuli). I can even manage stimuli to produce a managed (based on probability) reaction in you.

Here are a series of facts:

1) You can't wash your eyes with soap.
2) You can't count your hair.
3) You can't breath through your nose with your tongue out.
4) You just tried number 3.
6) When you tried number 3, you realised it is possible, only you look like a dog.
7) You're smiling right now because you were fooled.
8) You skipped number 5
9) You just checked to see if there is a number 5.
10) I have just produced a managed reaction with managed stimuli.

 

[buadum]

Except that I have never found any evidence for free-will.

To me, the word 'free-will' implies action without cause. But everything is caused by something else.

Human beings, like everything else, are responding organisms. This means that you react to stimuli. Everything that makes you you (beyond DNA) is a result of a series of life-long and complex reaction to stimuli of various degrees.

If you see a plant you have never seen before and you touch it. If that plant stings you, your brain memorizes the configuration of that plant and the next time you see one, or something similar, you wont touch it again. Moreover, you'll warn others not to touch it. This is the simplest example of stimuli/reaction.

A simple experiment you can conduct to evidence the above is as follows: Try to do something now, a thought, a word, an action, anything that is not a result of having read this text.

This is one of the reasons why there is no such thing as human nature, or freedom of choice, or free-thinking, because all of these things are determined by experiences (stimuli) which determine behaviour (reaction). Sometimes the stimuli is subtle, sometimes the stimuli is one of several stimuli leading to a single reaction over time. Sometimes the stimuli causes unconscious reactions (subliminal messaging, for example).

Managing stimuli can produce managed reactions from human beings also. Nazi Germany is a good example of this. How the Nazi's managed all views and all propaganda (the stimuli) toward the Jews in order to generate the necessary reactions in the people to have made the holocaust possible (the language of Nazi Germany against the Jews is a fascinating line of research for students of language).

Another example of managed stimuli is in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. On every news channel, every radio channel, every newspaper and publication the words 'terror, terrorist, terrorist attack, war on terror, bin laden, Al Qaeda' were used in myriad but managed ways to produce enough support for an invasion of Afghanistan (the reaction).

Any thought currently running through your head (the reaction) is because of what you are reading now (stimuli). I can even manage stimuli to produce a managed (based on probability) reaction in you.

Here are a series of facts:

1) You can't wash your eyes with soap.
2) You can't count your hair.
3) You can't breath through your nose with your tongue out.
4) You just tried number 3.
6) When you tried number 3, you realised it is possible, only you look like a dog.
7) You're smiling right now because you were fooled.
8) You skipped number 5
9) You just checked to see if there is a number 5.
10) I have just produced a managed reaction with managed stimuli.

When a baby is born nurses feint dropping it to test its reaction, despite never being dropped, or seeing anyone dropped,or never experiencing anything they jump, that kind of goes against learned behaviour.

 

[yokomodoful]

Show me god, am I to follow some god man say exists, despite having not even a hint of proof.

Worse still despite never seeing,hearing,or anything people claim to know what god wants.

Makes no sense.

Can you see, hear, touch, smell or taste love. No, and it is more than just some impulses in the brain. However, you can see the result of true love, however imperfect our love may be. You see it in the care a mother has for her baby. You see it when the sisters in Calcutta are picking up the dying in the streets and caring for them. You see it at the food banks. You can see it all around you, in the little things.
God sent His prophets and then He sent His son - the second person of the Trinity - God Himself. Jesus showed us the Father. His life, death, and resurrection is our proof. The way He manifests Himself personally to us in the quiet, there is our proof. Life, Love, and God cannot be defined by our 5 senses alone.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Can you see, hear, touch, smell or taste love. No, and it is more than just some impulses in the brain. However, you can see the result of true love, however imperfect our love may be. You see it in the care a mother has for her baby. You see it when the sisters in Calcutta are picking up the dying in the streets and caring for them. You see it at the food banks. You can see it all around you, in the little things.
God sent His prophets and then He sent His son - the second person of the Trinity - God Himself. Jesus showed us the Father. His life, death, and resurrection is our proof. The way He manifests Himself personally to us in the quiet, there is our proof. Life, Love, and God cannot be defined by our 5 senses alone.

Or it might just be beyond or senses, maybe some other animals who have superior senses could tell when humans are in love.

 

[Mycroft]

When a baby is born nurses feint dropping it to test its reaction, despite never being dropped, or seeing anyone dropped,or never experiencing anything they jump, that kind of goes against learned behaviour.

That is due to several mechanisms in the head (including the inner ear) producing a mechanical reaction. But again that reaction is still caused by the nurse feign-dropping it, so not free-will.

 

[buadum]

Can you see, hear, touch, smell or taste love. No, and it is more than just some impulses in the brain. However, you can see the result of true love, however imperfect our love may be. You see it in the care a mother has for her baby. You see it when the sisters in Calcutta are picking up the dying in the streets and caring for them. You see it at the food banks. You can see it all around you, in the little things.
God sent His prophets and then He sent His son - the second person of the Trinity - God Himself. Jesus showed us the Father. His life, death, and resurrection is our proof. The way He manifests Himself personally to us in the quiet, there is our proof. Life, Love, and God cannot be defined by our 5 senses alone.

You can feel emotions, therefore I am aware of them, you cannot feel god.

Feeling an emotion is absolutly not evidence of the existence of god, just because you have been conditioned to believe that feelings of love come from god does not make it so.

You cannot in any way,shape,or form show anything even remotely pointing to the existence of god other then what you believe to be TRUE.

I once believed in the tooth fairy, I was conditioned to believe that,believing did not make it so.

What causes love, you cannot say its god just because you have been taught that, could be other things causing the emotion.

 

[nash8]

Pretty much. We just end up going around and around in circles and the thread goes off topic. It doesn't help that you address points line by line, and it ends up taking about an hour just to respond to one post of yours. Try answering the overall point of posts instead of sentence by sentence. That grates on my nerves.

So I'm not interested in talking to you at all, honestly.

Does this mean I win?

 

[yokomodoful]

You can feel emotions, therefore I am aware of them, you cannot feel god.

Feeling an emotion is absolutly not evidence of the existence of god, just because you have been conditioned to believe that feelings of love come from god does not make it so.

You cannot in any way,shape,or form show anything even remotely pointing to the existence of god other then what you believe to be TRUE.

I once believed in the tooth fairy, I was conditioned to believe that,believing did not make it so.

What causes love, you cannot say its god just because you have been taught that, could be other things causing the emotion.

As I stated before, love is more than just synapses and neurotransmitters in the brain. It can not be defined by our senses alone yet it exists. I am not talking about the love that is just an emotion.

Like I said before, Jesus is God and also man. He existed and He exists. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate around the year 38, he suffered died and was burried. He rose again in fullfilment of the scriptures. This happened in our history.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

As I stated before, love is more than just synapses and neurotransmitters in the brain. It can not be defined by our senses alone yet it exists. I am not talking about the love that is just an emotion.

Like I said before, Jesus is God and also man. He existed and He exists. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate around the year 38, he suffered died and was burried. He rose again in fullfilment of the scriptures. This happened in our history.

How do you know love is more?

People use to say that Love came from our hearts? What makes you think love is more?

You say it cannot be defined by our senses alone? Which senses are you talking about? The common 5 or the other 14 or so senses we have?

 

[Mycroft]

How do you know love is more?

People use to say that Love came from our hearts? What makes you think love is more?

You say it cannot be defined by our senses alone? Which senses are you talking about? The common 5 or the other 14 or so senses we have?

Have to stop you here. Tell me, kind sir, what is it that you mean by the word love?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Have to stop you here. Tell me, kind sir, what is it that you mean by the word love?

I don't know, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

They said "love is more than neurotransmitters and impulses" (Paraphrasing)

So what makes them think so??

 

[yokomodoful]

I don't know, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

They said "love is more than neurotransmitters and impulses" (Paraphrasing)

So what makes them think so??

The term love is used often, but it can mean many different things. The love I am talking about comes from God and is God. It is what animates life. It`s what gives purpose to life. It is unchanging and eternal, it is willed by your inmost being. We are made to love and be loved.
How do I know you ask? I have no proof, but I have faith and I have hope. Without love and without God there is no purpose of life.
You may disagree. You may say there are personal goals, there is beauty, pleasure. There is doing good for humanity, but if there is no underlying purpose then to me it means nothing.

In my job, I rely on proven facts, on research, and for most things this is necessary - However, not everthing can be proven. Just the fact that there is something rather than nothing. There is life, rather than no life. Matter rather than nothing is an absurdity. It is even more absurd to think it just always existed without cause or reason. My experience tells me that life has meaning and not just a subjective personal meaning, but a reason that life exists.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't know, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

They said "love is more than neurotransmitters and impulses" (Paraphrasing)

So what makes them think so??

Well I have a good understanding of what love is. I think. I will detail it on another day because its a loooong post!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Does this mean I win?

If it suits your ego to think of it that way. I don't care.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I was talking with a good pastor friend of mine about God, heaven, sin, that type of thing. We were actually talking about the idea that Christians need to spread the word, I asked why he cared about salvation of others if he's all set. He responded by saying that God wants everyone saved, since he is all loving and such. I came back saying; well no, if God wanted us all saved he could just do it. He gave some banal mini-speech on sin, after which I restated that if God was all loving we'd be saved, yet the actual case seems to be God needs to get off on our own self loathing, groveling for forgiveness. For the first time in our friendship I saw that look of doubt being fought away, and I couldn't help but smile.

So what's your opinion? Is this Christian god-concept an all loving, perfect father figure or a sadistic, morally reprehensible creepy uncle?

If one believes in hell, and/or an omnipotent and interventionist deity (i.e. one who interacts with the world/universe as a causal agent), the facts of existence are irreconcilable with the predication of benevolence, much less "omni-benevolence" of this deity. And unfortunately, the same old dried up canard about choice and free will remains an inadequate answer; there is nothing about free will that precludes the non-existence of eternal punishment (or any punishment) for incorrect/un-belief, or the absence of (or at less lessening of) suffering/evil. As always, one runs into trouble when one states how things must be prior to looking to see how they really are; the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent intervening deity is not consistent with the world we live in.

 

[yokomodoful]

If one believes in hell, and/or an omnipotent and interventionist deity (i.e. one who interacts with the world/universe as a causal agent), the facts of existence are irreconcilable with the predication of benevolence, much less "omni-benevolence" of this deity. And unfortunately, the same old dried up canard about choice and free will remains an inadequate answer; there is nothing about free will that precludes the non-existence of eternal punishment (or any punishment) for incorrect/un-belief, or the absence of (or at less lessening of) suffering/evil. As always, one runs into trouble when one states how things must be prior to looking to see how they really are; the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent intervening deity is not consistent with the world we live in.

The free will argument is old and doesn't change because truth doesn't change. We must be perfected by God's love and mercy to enter heaven. If we do not accept his love and mercy, we cannot enter. Would you want be in a heaven with murderers and rapists who are not even sorry for their actions? What type of heaven would that be? As for the world we live in, it does have suffering, but this gives us an opportunity to show and to be God's love and mercy. Just because a person is suffering doesn't mean he/she is loved any less. Jesus's life is proof of that.

 

[yokomodoful]

Well I have a good understanding of what love is. I think. I will detail it on another day because its a loooong post!

Don't keep us in suspense!

 

[captainbryce]

So what's your opinion? Is this Christian god-concept an all loving, perfect father figure or a sadistic, morally reprehensible creepy uncle?

My opinion is that he is an all loving, perfect father figure. And I think that you've failed to make a convincing argument otherwise. Perhaps the "doubt" you saw in your friend was merely "disappointment".