Challenge to Evolutionsts

[camanintx]

And the same goes for you. If you were raised in India, I am betting there was a significant chance that you would be Hindu and not atheist. Does that mean atheism is wrong?

How do you figure that, Nick? Wouldn't the same thought process that leads one to reject Christianity also lead one to reject Hinduism or any other theism? I have every reason to believe that an atheist here would be an atheist anywhere.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree. I don't claim to have solved the mystery of consciousness and give an account of how it works. I am only saying that my awareness of the self and the sense of freewill is at odds with metaphysical naturalism.

I don't find any contradiction, but, as I said, different thread. In fact, I don't see how on earth you can have both free will and an omniscient God.

True. However, this does not mean a soul does not exist. Only that our mind has some very intricate mechanical counterparts that are operated through the brain.

Call for Mr. Occam.
1. No consciousness without brain.
2. Consciousness with brain.
3. Why see consciousness as other than an emergent property of brains?

Dennett has a way of redefining things so that they fit within metaphysical naturalism. He claims that the consciousness problem is solved in his "Consciousness Explained" book. I cannot see true freewill (we are free agents) being compatible with any theory that describes the mind as being completely reducible to smaller, indifferent, thoughtless moving parts.

I think I see free will differently than Dennett. Do we need another thread?

See, I am learning more about the IPU with every post.

Just wait till I reveal Her true nature.

And the same goes for you. If you were raised in India, I am betting there was a significant chance that you would be Hindu and not atheist. Does that mean atheism is wrong?

Not sure, but here's the different. If you use your "intuition" and "common sense" you usually end up believing what everyone around you believe. If you use a scientific approach, you have an objective method for coming up with your own answer. For example, I live in a Christian country, but am an atheist.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't find any contradiction, but, as I said, different thread. In fact, I don't see how on earth you can have both free will and an omniscient God.

God's knowledge of our action does not interfere with our free agency. Who we are is made up of the sum of all of the decisions we make during our life. That defines us. And God knew us before we were born.

Call for Mr. Occam.
1. No consciousness without brain.
2. Consciousness with brain.
3. Why see consciousness as other than an emergent property of brains?

Because the brain is only one necessary part. An engine is made up of lots of different parts and it needs all of them to run. Perhaps the brain is the only part of the "mind" that can be inspected physically.

I think I see free will differently than Dennett. Do we need another thread?

Sure, why not.

Not sure, but here's the different. If you use your "intuition" and "common sense" you usually end up believing what everyone around you believe. If you use a scientific approach, you have an objective method for coming up with your own answer. For example, I live in a Christian country, but am an atheist.

I don't see how you can use a scientific approach to becoming an atheist. What study or theorem declares that there is no God? I too believe in the scientific method and a scientific approach to knowledge, yet I am Christian.

As I mentioned earlier, you too are using your "intuition" and "common sense" not to trust any form of knowledge other than the "scientific approach". This leads you to atheism. However, there is no science that shows that special revelation does not exist, and miracles don't happen, yet you use your intuition to believe they are not possible.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

How do you figure that, Nick? Wouldn't the same thought process that leads one to reject Christianity also lead one to reject Hinduism or any other theism? I have every reason to believe that an atheist here would be an atheist anywhere.

The problem is, once you reject God and any notion of a soul (or inner-being that controls your actions) you are then left with the conclusion that you believe what you believe because nature tells you to believe it. You are just the outcome of of your genetic disposition and the massive, chaotic flow of stimulus. There is no "you" inside that rejects theism. You and your beliefs (or non-beliefs) are just a consequence of nature's flow.

In a way it is really self-defeating to not believe in a soul because there is no real way to have any perspective of reality from outside the box. You would have to believe that you believe there is no soul because that is the way you are programmed, not because you have any special perspective on it that overrides nature's will.

To be honest I have a lot of trouble understanding how people can view and accept themselves as what I would call nature's puppet. Doesn't everyone have a sense of identity and volition that is in utter conflict with that notion?

 

[Autodidact]

I think there is a good reason for this and it has to do with our power of volition. If there was no mechanism (or nature if you prefer) to our inclinations and behaviors, we would be powerless to have meaningful relationships. We would never know how our actions would make other people feel. But because our brain has emotional mechanisms, and predictable means of perception, we can have meaningful relationships. This is a necessary design for us.

This is not responsive to my point. My point was that consciousness is very closely associated with brain activity. No brain, no consciousness. Injury to specific areas of the brain correlate with changes in personality. Certain types of thoughts and emotions can be tracked in the brain, even the most "soulful". Certain specific brain conditions can even trigger religious experiences.

And you have absolutely no way of knowing what is a design, let alone a necessary one. We have already established that once you leave the scientific method, you have no way of knowing anything. All you have is "intuition" and "common sense," which are not only usually wrong, but have no means of correction or detection of whether they are right or wrong.

But what about the quality of feelings? Science depends on quantification. Is blue a number? Not the wavelength, and not the pattern of neurons that fire when we feel blue, but rather the actual feeling? Something you could describe in a comprehensible manner to someone who was color blind?

Blue is a wavelength of light.
Now blue as something that is perceived, any perception, cannot really be reduced to a description. We assume, and it seems most likely, that we all perceive it the same way, but we can't know for certain, not for absolute certain. Nor can it be conveyed except by analogy. Nevertheless, it can certainly be measured, and frequently is by astronomers, chemists and others. This is all freshman dorm type stuff, but what does any of it have to do with the existence of God or the supernatural?

 

[Autodidact]

God's knowledge of our action does not interfere with our free agency. Who we are is made up of the sum of all of the decisions we make during our life. That defines us. And God knew us before we were born.

What? Did you get this out of Apologetics Weekly or something? Does this even make any sense to you? Stop and think about it: God knows what word you're going to type next. You are not free to choose any other word; if you were, God could not know what word you were going to type next. God's foreknowledge cannot possibly be compatible with free will.

Because the brain is only one necessary part. An engine is made up of lots of different parts and it needs all of them to run. Perhaps the brain is the only part of the "mind" that can be inspected physically.

AND YOU KNOW THIS HOW? Is there any other kind of inspection? What does it mean for something to exist, if you cannot perceive it or its effects with any sense?

I don't see how you can use a scientific approach to becoming an atheist. What study or theorem declares that there is no God? I too believe in the scientific method and a scientific approach to knowledge, yet I am Christian.

It's basically a I'm-from-Missouri, show me kind of approach. Evidence based. Empirical. Where's the evidence?

As I mentioned earlier, you too are using your "intuition" and "common sense" not to trust any form of knowledge other than the "scientific approach". This leads you to atheism. However, there is no science that shows that special revelation does not exist, and miracles don't happen, yet you use your intuition to believe they are not possible.

No, I'm not. It comes from hard, counter-intuitive reason. It's the only thing that really works. That's why I can tell you how I know something, and you can't. People's intuition does not lead to the scientific method. It took us thousands of years to figure it out. [There is one other form of knowledge, but it is entirely theoretical. That is pure logic and mathematics.]
Hey, special revelation exists! That's how I know you're going to spend eternity in everlasting torment for not worshipping the IPU. If you think I'm wrong, HOW DO YOU KNOW?
The fact is, you use empiricism too, every day of your life. You use it constantly, and rely on it, and expect others to rely on it, in every area of your life except religion. Let's say you were accused of murder and brought before a court. How would you like it if the judge or jury relied on "special revelation" instead of evidence? True, there's no empirical evidence of your guilt, but they got a revelation and their communion with the holy spirit told them you were guilty.
Let's say you were gravely ill. (IPU forbid.) Your doctor says sure, the tests seem to indicate Ickitis, and the prescribed treatment is Blabomide, but he's just got a revelation that you're possessed by demons and a nice exorcism is just the trick. Now, it's not based on evidence; it's his communion with the holy spirit. Good thing for you he and the holy spirit are like this: )(
No, I think in all important matters you agree with me that empiricism is the way to go--except one. There you can throw reason out the window and believe any old thing, just because you happened to be born in one country rather than another.

 

[diemisus]

i have the answer: opposable thumbs. hehe jk.

 

[Autodidact]

The problem is, once you reject God and any notion of a soul (or inner-being that controls your actions) you are then left with the conclusion that you believe what you believe because nature tells you to believe it. You are just the outcome of of your genetic disposition and the massive, chaotic flow of stimulus. There is no "you" inside that rejects theism. You and your beliefs (or non-beliefs) are just a consequence of nature's flow.

Here's the thing: try really hard to stop thinking of a person as some kind of ethereal spirit living IN the body, forced to do things by genetics and environment. I believe that I AM my body. Genetics + environment doesn't MAKE me do anything, it IS me. See the difference?

In a way it is really self-defeating to not believe in a soul because there is no real way to have any perspective of reality from outside the box. You would have to believe that you believe there is no soul because that is the way you are programmed, not because you have any special perspective on it that overrides nature's will.

I almost understood this. I don't believe I'm programmed at all. A lot of stuff just happens. The unique combination of genes, environment and random whatever IS me and what I believe. I don't believe I have any special perspective, just the same ability everyone else has to figure stuff out.

I do agree with this. Once you look at all the evidence and reach a conclusion, you really can't make yourself believe the opposite. What philosopher said, "You can't say 'It's true but I don't believe it'?" You don't believe things cuz you want to, but because they seem true.

To be honest I have a lot of trouble understanding how people can view and accept themselves as what I would call nature's puppet. Doesn't everyone have a sense of identity and volition that is in utter conflict with that notion?

I don't think I'm nature's puppet. I think I'm part of nature.

Just cuz something feels a certain way doesn't mean anything.

Free will, determinism, consciousness, all very difficult problems that God does not solve. Just take "God" and put it where you put "nature" and you see the problem's even worse with God than without.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

This is not responsive to my point. My point was that consciousness is very closely associated with brain activity. No brain, no consciousness. Injury to specific areas of the brain correlate with changes in personality. Certain types of thoughts and emotions can be tracked in the brain, even the most "soulful". Certain specific brain conditions can even trigger religious experiences.

Then you missed my point. You have no way of knowing that there aren't other "parts" to the mind other than the brain. The brain is the only one we observe, and we have good reason to account for other parts because of freewill and consciousness. If I didn't feel like I had freewill and conscious sensations, I would agree with you; there would be no reason to think there is something else going on with the mind. But if the brain is insufficient for understanding our conscious experience and sense of identity, then it is justified to believe something is missing, even if we don't know what that missing piece is.

And you have absolutely no way of knowing what is a design, let alone a necessary one. We have already established that once you leave the scientific method, you have no way of knowing anything. All you have is "intuition" and "common sense," which are not only usually wrong, but have no means of correction or detection of whether they are right or wrong.

We have not established that. You have said it several times and I keep responding that you have no way of knowing that special revelation doesn't exists, or a priori knowledge as far as that goes. Ever since the Vienna Circle, our culture has bent to the way you now see it; you can't know something unless you can prove it to me. I find that absurd. We have limited means to prove things to each other (the material world which our physical senses are tied to), but that doesn't mean that is all there is. It is a very short sighted point of view.

Blue is a wavelength of light.
Now blue as something that is perceived, any perception, cannot really be reduced to a description. We assume, and it seems most likely, that we all perceive it the same way, but we can't know for certain, not for absolute certain. Nor can it be conveyed except by analogy. Nevertheless, it can certainly be measured, and frequently is by astronomers, chemists and others. This is all freshman dorm type stuff, but what does any of it have to do with the existence of God or the supernatural?

Because science and math are based on descriptions that we can communicate to each other. If we have something that is beyond description (as you have said), then it cannot be understood with science and math. To suggest there exists something in this Universe that can't be quantified, like consciousness, then it is contrary to our ideas of nature. All of our laws of physics and knowledge of nature rely on measurement and quantification. We have no process or mechanism to describe or comprehend a nature that isn't measurable. Therefore, it should be considered outside of epistemology of nature.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

What? Did you get this out of Apologetics Weekly or something? Does this even make any sense to you? Stop and think about it: God knows what word you're going to type next. You are not free to choose any other word; if you were, God could not know what word you were going to type next. God's foreknowledge cannot possibly be compatible with free will.

Apologetics weekly?

No of course not. In Christian theology, God (the father) does not live in time like we do. He is outside of time and He sees all points of space and time equally. Time is unfolding for us, but God knows the beginning and the end. Because of His infinite nature, He has all eternity to consider each and every thinking moment we have. Just because he knows every decision I'll make doesn't mean I didn't make them out of my own freewill. There is a difference between knowledge and control.

This is not the first time someone has brought up this "contradiction". It is a very common objection and I have thought about it considerably.

AND YOU KNOW THIS HOW? Is there any other kind of inspection? What does it mean for something to exist, if you cannot perceive it or its effects with any sense?

I think I answered this in the last post. Let me know if I missed a point.

It's basically a I'm-from-Missouri, show me kind of approach. Evidence based. Empirical. Where's the evidence?

...

No, I'm not. It comes from hard, counter-intuitive reason. It's the only thing that really works. That's why I can tell you how I know something, and you can't.

Your assumption that my knowledge needs to be provable to you in order for it to be "real" knowledge. That is bogus. Here is an example: I prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate. How can I prove that to you with empirical science? If I can't, does that mean I don't "know it"? You have to take my word for it.

Your "hard, counter-intuitive reason", if taken to the extreme, would lead you to have a very shallow set of beliefs. How can you have a world-view? Are you a positivist or a realist? There is no way to decide that from "evidence".

People's intuition does not lead to the scientific method. It took us thousands of years to figure it out.

Then how did we ever figure it out? :cover:

Hey, special revelation exists! That's how I know you're going to spend eternity in everlasting torment for not worshipping the IPU. If you think I'm wrong, HOW DO YOU KNOW?

From what you have revealed to me about the IPU, I can easily dismiss it as mockery of real faith (based on good old fashioned common sense). Btw, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

The fact is, you use empiricism too, every day of your life. You use it constantly, and rely on it, and expect others to rely on it, in every area of your life except religion. Let's say you were accused of murder and brought before a court. How would you like it if the judge or jury relied on "special revelation" instead of evidence? True, there's no empirical evidence of your guilt, but they got a revelation and their communion with the holy spirit told them you were guilty.
Let's say you were gravely ill. (IPU forbid.) Your doctor says sure, the tests seem to indicate Ickitis, and the prescribed treatment is Blabomide, but he's just got a revelation that you're possessed by demons and a nice exorcism is just the trick. Now, it's not based on evidence; it's his communion with the holy spirit. Good thing for you he and the holy spirit are like this: )(
No, I think in all important matters you agree with me that empiricism is the way to go--except one. There you can throw reason out the window and believe any old thing, just because you happened to be born in one country rather than another.

Of course I use empiricism! I have said that multiple times. It is a point I have made several times that you seem to forget. Faith is no substitution for empirical evidence. It is complementary. I am not going to believe something on faith, if there is good empirical evidence of the opposite. For example, if the body of Christ were found and it could be verified as His body, I would cease being a Christian.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Here's the thing: try really hard to stop thinking of a person as some kind of ethereal spirit living IN the body, forced to do things by genetics and environment. I believe that I AM my body. Genetics + environment doesn't MAKE me do anything, it IS me. See the difference?

No... it sounds like you are pretending in something that doesn't agree with your belief system. If genetics and environment don't determine everything about you (and your "body"), then define for me what else is there that does (that can't be reduced to genetics and environment)?

I almost understood this. I don't believe I'm programmed at all. A lot of stuff just happens. The unique combination of genes, environment and random whatever IS me and what I believe. I don't believe I have any special perspective, just the same ability everyone else has to figure stuff out.

Then you would have to believe that your feelings of "you" is an illusion. The point is that with naturalism "you" is something that is reducible to little equations. Every molecule inside you is subject to manipulation from outside forces that you can't control.

I do agree with this. Once you look at all the evidence and reach a conclusion, you really can't make yourself believe the opposite. What philosopher said, "You can't say 'It's true but I don't believe it'?" You don't believe things cuz you want to, but because they seem true.

I agree.

Free will, determinism, consciousness, all very difficult problems that God does not solve. Just take "God" and put it where you put "nature" and you see the problem's even worse with God than without.

How so? Belief in God allows one to believe in a soul. That makes my experience in this world make a lot more sense then being part of some blind machine. As you said above, I believe it because "they seem true".

 

[camanintx]

Apologetics weekly?

No of course not. In Christian theology, God (the father) does not live in time like we do. He is outside of time and He sees all points of space and time equally. Time is unfolding for us, but God knows the beginning and the end. Because of His infinite nature, He has all eternity to consider each and every thinking moment we have. Just because he knows every decision I'll make doesn't mean I didn't make them out of my own freewill. There is a difference between knowledge and control.

This is not the first time someone has brought up this "contradiction". It is a very common objection and I have thought about it considerably.

If you assume that time is something that we move through and which God can exist outside of, then any knowledge of the future is clearly incompatible with free will. If I have the free will to choose between options A and B, and that choice has not been made yet, how can there be any knowledge of what that choice will be, even for something that exists "outside of time"? If God has the knowledge that I will choose option A, how could I have the free will to choose option B without rendering God's future knowledge false? At best, God could know the probability of me choosing either option A or B, but if every choice is dependent on the choices we made before it, the probabilities become more and more homogeneous the further you get from the present, and God's knowledge becomes nothing.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

If you assume that time is something that we move through and which God can exist outside of, then any knowledge of the future is clearly incompatible with free will. If I have the free will to choose between options A and B, and that choice has not been made yet, how can there be any knowledge of what that choice will be, even for something that exists "outside of time"?

If God has the knowledge that I will choose option A, how could I have the free will to choose option B without rendering God's future knowledge false? At best, God could know the probability of me choosing either option A or B, but if every choice is dependent on the choices we made before it, the probabilities become more and more homogeneous the further you get from the present, and God's knowledge becomes nothing.

You are creating a false dependency between God's knowledge and your decision. Why does there have to be a dependency? God's awareness doesn't cause you to choose one or the other.

For example, you have knowledge of what you chose yesterday. Does that mean those decisions weren't free? Of course not! There is no dependency between knowledge and action. It is the same with God, except He knows what decisions you will make tomorrow as well. The beginning and the end are all seen by God equally. We are stuck in the flow of time, so it is difficult to see the future and the past as the same thing.

 

[Autodidact]

Then you missed my point. You have no way of knowing that there aren't other "parts" to the mind other than the brain.

Do you have some way of knowing that there are?

The brain is the only one we observe, and we have good reason to account for other parts because of freewill and consciousness. If I didn't feel like I had freewill and conscious sensations, I would agree with you; there would be no reason to think there is something else going on with the mind. But if the brain is insufficient for understanding our conscious experience and sense of identity, then it is justified to believe something is missing, even if we don't know what that missing piece is.

I fail to see how free will (assuming we really have it, and don't just feel like we do) means that the brain has in immaterial, invisible, intangible part. This is really a primitive view of personhood, that there is a separate, intangible "spirit" that lives in the body. How would you know? Is there any evidence of any such thing?

We have not established that. You have said it several times and I keep responding that you have no way of knowing that special revelation doesn't exists, or a priori knowledge as far as that goes. Ever since the Vienna Circle, our culture has bent to the way you now see it; you can't know something unless you can prove it to me. I find that absurd. We have limited means to prove things to each other (the material world which our physical senses are tied to), but that doesn't mean that is all there is. It is a very short sighted point of view.

1. I already told you that special revelation exists. Now you may begin tithing to the IPU via my PayPal account.
2. I'm not into proof. It's too rare. I also don't seek certainty, for the same reason. I'm into evidence, and reasonable conclusions based on same.
Let's say there's a whole world you can't see, hear, feel, or experience with any sense. You can't measure its effects; they're completely intangible. How would you know it existed? What difference would it make?

 

[Autodidact]

No of course not. In Christian theology, God (the father) does not live in time like we do. He is outside of time and He sees all points of space and time equally. Time is unfolding for us, but God knows the beginning and the end. Because of His infinite nature, He has all eternity to consider each and every thinking moment we have. Just because he knows every decision I'll make doesn't mean I didn't make them out of my own freewill. There is a difference between knowledge and control.

1. That makes no sense. *** is "outside of time?"
2. Since that's something we can't communicate about, as you said, I think you should stop trying to communicate about it. Since it's outside of epistemology, we can't know about it. So please stop telling me that you do.
3. Think about it. God knows what you're going to do. You're not free to choose anything else. If you were, He couldn't know it. That's why God does not solve the problem if free will; it exacerbates it.

This is not the first time someone has brought up this "contradiction". It is a very common objection and I have thought about it considerably.

Too bad you haven't resolved it.

I think I answered this in the last post. Let me know if I missed a point.

All I got was, you have to figure it out for yourself, intuition, and common sense. Did you know that both intuition and common sense are notoriously unreliable? If everyone's using their intuition and common sense, how do you know whose is right? How do you know the Mormon's didn't get it right? The Moonies? The IPU?

Your assumption that my knowledge needs to be provable to you in order for it to be "real" knowledge. That is bogus. Here is an example: I prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate. How can I prove that to you with empirical science? If I can't, does that mean I don't "know it"? You have to take my word for it.

I'm not into proof. I'm into evidence. As to a person's tastes and preferences, their say-so is pretty good evidence, unless they have some motivation to lie.

Your "hard, counter-intuitive reason", if taken to the extreme, would lead you to have a very shallow set of beliefs. How can you have a world-view? Are you a positivist or a realist? There is no way to decide that from "evidence".

Please define. If you want to challenge my beliefs, you would first need to find out what they are, and why. That includes ethics, if that's where you're going. Overall, I think you'll find them preferable to Biblical ethics. I think slavery is wrong, for example.

Then how did we ever figure it out? :cover:

Long story, the history of science. Let's say trial and error.

From what you have revealed to me about the IPU, I can easily dismiss it as mockery of real faith (based on good old fashioned common sense). Btw, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

It's a hypo, Nick. Deal with it.

Of course I use empiricism! I have said that multiple times. It is a point I have made several times that you seem to forget. Faith is no substitution for empirical evidence. It is complementary. I am not going to believe something on faith, if there is good empirical evidence of the opposite. For example, if the body of Christ were found and it could be verified as His body, I would cease being a Christian.

But you do believe things with no evidence at all. And my question, which you have not touched, is: if you don't use evidence, how do you figure out which faith to believe?

 

[Willamena]

3. Think about it. God knows what you're going to do. You're not free to choose anything else. If you were, He couldn't know it. That's why God does not solve the problem if free will; it exacerbates it.

That still incorporates time. If you want to be truly timeless, the closest you can come is to complain about the present --"now".

God knows what you're doing. You're (not?/are) free to (choose?) anything else, because if you were he couldn't (know?/be) it. That's why God does not solve the problem of free will; he knows(/is) it. He doesn't exacerbate it, you do.

 

[camanintx]

You are creating a false dependency between God's knowledge and your decision. Why does there have to be a dependency? God's awareness doesn't cause you to choose one or the other.

For example, you have knowledge of what you chose yesterday. Does that mean those decisions weren't free? Of course not! There is no dependency between knowledge and action. It is the same with God, except He knows what decisions you will make tomorrow as well. The beginning and the end are all seen by God equally. We are stuck in the flow of time, so it is difficult to see the future and the past as the same thing.

Of course there is dependency, but not the way you think. Since I have no way of knowing what God might know, my decisions are not dependent on God's knowledge. But if we have free will, then God's knowledge of the future is totally dependent on the choices we make. How can it be otherwise?

You are saying that the God of now has information about the future, for example that I am going to choose option A. If I have free will and decide to choose option B, then regardless if I am aware of God's knowledge or not, God's information is wrong and God does not know the future. Does this make sense to you?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Do you have some way of knowing that there are? I fail to see how free will (assuming we really have it, and don't just feel like we do) means that the brain has in immaterial, invisible, intangible part. This is really a primitive view of personhood, that there is a separate, intangible "spirit" that lives in the body. How would you know? Is there any evidence of any such thing?

It seems pretty logical to me. If what we can potentially discover about the brain using natural discovery doesn't account for everything I recognize is part of the cognitive experience, then I must believe that there must be other parts to the mind that are not part of what can be discovered through nature.

1. I already told you that special revelation exists. Now you may begin tithing to the IPU via my PayPal account.

That's nice. Do you really believe that special revelation exists, or are you just trying to make a point using mockery?

2. I'm not into proof. It's too rare. I also don't seek certainty, for the same reason. I'm into evidence, and reasonable conclusions based on same.

Evidence doesn't provide you with proof? What then is required to prove something to you?

Let's say there's a whole world you can't see, hear, feel, or experience with any sense. You can't measure its effects; they're completely intangible. How would you know it existed? What difference would it make?

It wouldn't. But we do experience the spiritual world. I contend there is a difference between the physical world (objective, measurable, verifiable), and the spiritual world (subjecive experience).

 

[Nick Soapdish]

1. That makes no sense. *** is "outside of time?"

I will start a new thread for this.

2. Since that's something we can't communicate about, as you said, I think you should stop trying to communicate about it. Since it's outside of epistemology, we can't know about it. So please stop telling me that you do.

I assume you are referring to our discussion of conscious experience. My point was that it cannot be communicated and understood in the same way as things that are subject to scientific discovery. Sorry if I did a poor job communicating that.

All I got was, you have to figure it out for yourself, intuition, and common sense. Did you know that both intuition and common sense are notoriously unreliable? If everyone's using their intuition and common sense, how do you know whose is right? How do you know the Mormon's didn't get it right? The Moonies? The IPU?

You may not know who is right. But that doesn't mean someone isn't right.

I believe intuition and common sense is far more useful than you give it credit. Admittedly, it is no replacement for experience, but we don't have experience for many things.

Please define. If you want to challenge my beliefs, you would first need to find out what they are, and why. That includes ethics, if that's where you're going. Overall, I think you'll find them preferable to Biblical ethics. I think slavery is wrong, for example.

Well go ahead then. What is your world view and what is it based on?

Long story, the history of science. Let's say trial and error.

Ah, but how did they know what "trials" to run, and how to determine what was an "error" without intuition? Intuition is much more useful than you give it credit for.

It's a hypo, Nick. Deal with it.

Sorry, I have trouble taking Unicorns, much less pink ones seriously. Unless they are stuffed and sitting on my daughter's shelf.

But you do believe things with no evidence at all. And my question, which you have not touched, is: if you don't use evidence, how do you figure out which faith to believe?

By what resonates with me, what make sense intuitively, and what gives me hope and inspiration. I fully expect that you will ask this again and claim I haven't answered it.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Of course there is dependency, but not the way you think. Since I have no way of knowing what God might know, my decisions are not dependent on God's knowledge. But if we have free will, then God's knowledge of the future is totally dependent on the choices we make. How can it be otherwise?

You are saying that the God of now has information about the future, for example that I am going to choose option A. If I have free will and decide to choose option B, then regardless if I am aware of God's knowledge or not, God's information is wrong and God does not know the future. Does this make sense to you?

3. Think about it. God knows what you're going to do. You're not free to choose anything else. If you were, He couldn't know it. That's why God does not solve the problem if free will; it exacerbates it.

Not really, because God has already seen what you will decide, eventhough it is still in the future for you. Just because it is in the future for you, does not mean it is for God.

It is no different than knowing what you decided (freely) in the past. It seems the difficulty you may have is how God can exist outside of time and still "do things" and "know things". I will start a separate thread on this.