Does God hate amputees?

[dybmh]

Irrelevant, the choices of an All-powerful God are unlimited, *not* binary in my view

The choice to create or not is binary, correct? what is the middle ground? where is the spectrum?

 

[Left Coast]

So if you had the power to reform him such that he either wouldn't have made the choice to do something illegal in the first place, or wouldn't do it ever again post reformation, would you prefer your friend to have committed an immoral act and be suffering for it? That is the power God allegedly has.

To be honest, no. We often grow by learning from our mistakes in ways we wouldn't if we never had the opportunity to make them. And that includes experiencing the suffering that goes along with making those mistakes. And sometimes it takes us more than once to learn. So no, I wouldn't deprive people of that freedom. Attempting to do such things is the theme of more than one dystopian novel.

Sure animals don't do what we want, but their choices are nonetheless constrained by their nature and nurture in my view.

But that wasn't what I disputed. So we're talking past each other now and talking about two different things.

Nature is not purely deterministic, it has a random element to it. But if a choice is random then how free are we to choose it if it is a purely random result?

How do you know all choices are random? All the available evidence demonstrates that our choices are by and large very much not random.

In my view God didn't allow your friend the freedom to commit a good choice. His choice was either made by the response of his neural pathways, brain chemistry to his upbringing etc or it was purely random. In the case it was purely random how did your friend control a random outcome?

This is begging the question.

Since God never gave him freedom to do a good choice in my view it seems to me only like substitution of like for like to not give him the freedom to make a bad choice.

This is facile reasoning grounded in an unproven assumption, Daniel. Do you have kids? Do you really want them to not have the freedom to make any of their own decisions, even if you don't agree with them?

It's bizarre to me that your beef with God is that apparently he's not authoritarian enough.

I'll see if I can dig up a good video on why our choices are a product of nature and nurture for us to discuss later, but I'm pressed for time now.

I don't know of anyone who seriously denies that we are products of nature and nurture. The question is whether we are only ever deterministically forced to do that which we do or if we ever have genuine agency to do otherwise.

 

[danieldemol]

To be honest, no. We often grow by learning from our mistakes in ways we wouldn't if we never had the opportunity to make them. And that includes experiencing the suffering that goes along with making those mistakes. And sometimes it takes us more than once to learn. So no, I wouldn't deprive people of that freedom. Attempting to do such things is the theme of more than one dystopian novel.

Well we have a difference of opinion that is probably irreconcilable there because I dont see the need to learn through suffering since an omnipotent God could have other means of teaching at its disposal that dont involve suffering.

I've never jumped of a cliff yet if one casts a lifeless object off a cliff to watch it smash at the bottom my desire to remain intact teaches me to not jump off a cliff.

Perhaps an omnipotent God as part of its nurture could give us knowledge of the consequences without adding suffering to the equation.

But that wasn't what I disputed. So we're talking past each other now and talking about two different things.

Ok, but if you could create an animal with a different nature and give it a different nurture it would be able to make better choices in my view. Since you agree that choices are the product of nature and nurture I dont see how you are saying choices are not largely predetermined by nature and nurture.

How do you know all choices are random? All the available evidence demonstrates that our choices are by and large very much not random.

I didn't say *all* choices are random. I was trying to explain that logically at the basic level choices are the result of things such as neural pathways the electrochemical reactions of the brain takes, and these are in turn determined by the cause and effect laws of nature down to the quantum level where there is a random element at play in what occurs. But we don't control either cause and effect or random occurrence in the brain as I understand it.

I'm going to include a link to this video which explains how the universe is partly deterministic and partly indeterministic because although I tried to summarise it in the above paragraph I may have done so in a sloppy manner;

This is facile reasoning grounded in an unproven assumption, Daniel. Do you have kids? Do you really want them to not have the freedom to make any of their own decisions, even if you don't agree with them?

I don't believe my daughter has the freedom to choose anything against her nurture/nature as it is.
I have shizophrenia and made poor decisions under the influence of it. After I began taking monthly injections I made significantly better decisions. If it was me that was making those decisions and not the electrochemical nature of my brain why did the chemical injections have any effect on my behaviour?

Its like this. say there are 3 paths, left, right and far right off a cliff. I may want my daughter to go left, but left and right are reasonable choices. Under the wrong brain chemistry she could see far right off a cliff as the best choice and wouldn't have the free will to choose otherwise.
But under the correct brain chemistry she may choose to go right where I wanted her to go left, but she would not choose to go far right off a cliff. So she would still have choices that may not accord with my wants/desires, but they would be limited to the reasonable ones.

It's bizarre to me that your beef with God is that apparently he's not authoritarian enough.

I think you have not quite got me. I'm saying that God hasn't given us freedom either way, our choices are dictated by our nature/nurture. So since our choices are dictated anyway why not dictate them correctly? This would not make God *more* authoritarian, just equivalently authoritarian in a better direction.

I don't know of anyone who seriously denies that we are products of nature and nurture. The question is whether we are only ever deterministically forced to do that which we do or if we ever have genuine agency to do otherwise.

The video I added explains we are a product of the partly deterministic and partly indeterministic nature of the universe. But the indeterministic part is due to random processes at the quantum level which are as equally outside our control as the deterministic processes are. So in short we don't in my view have genuine agency to act contrary to our nature/nurture.

 

[danieldemol]

The choice to create or not is binary, correct?

Correct, but that wasn't the choice you offered in my view.

 

[ajay0]

Besides, there is more than one way a person can be handicapped.

Dude, this is a very inspirational statement.

You are right. We handicap ourselves with our negative attitudes and mindsets.

 

[dybmh]

Correct, but that wasn't the choice you offered in my view.

Since you objected, I thought it would be good to scale it back and start at the very-very beginning. Without belaboring the point, I feel like I understand what you're saying, it's about absolute omnipotence, right? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? If God is also infinite, then that makes it more complicated than "if I were omnipotent I would do it differently." I'm saying that being infinte has implications. And this should be agreeable, because, naturally, how a god is defined is going to determine everything about this issue.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

5) Innocents who suffer as a result of the inevitable consequence of existing in a flawed reality will be rewarded in an afterlife and will realize that the suffering was for a good purpose and that the suffering was temporary.

This was the "logic" of "mother" theresa in her hospital.
She believed suffering was holy. This is why "patients" that came there were left there to die under very questionable circumstances. Eventhough considering all the donations she received, these hospitals should have been state-of-the-art.

For this reason, I loath the praise she gets. Imo, she is a very evil, sado-masochistic woman.

I get that it's a belief that is tailored to cope with the harsh reality of life for those unlucky enough to feel the full force of it.
At the same time, I don't consider it particularly virtuous or merciful.

It quickly deteriorates in very evil behavior, as per "mother" theresa's take on it.

7) Open miracles in the form of amputees regrowing limbs compromises the opportunity for communion through faith.

Well isn't that convenient.

 

[dybmh]

This was the "logic" of "mother" theresa in her hospital.
She believed suffering was holy. This is why "patients" that came there were left there to die under very questionable circumstances. Eventhough considering all the donations she received, these hospitals should have been state-of-the-art.

For this reason, I loath the praise she gets. Imo, she is a very evil, sado-masochistic woman.

I get that it's a belief that is tailored to cope with the harsh reality of life for those unlucky enough to feel the full force of it.
At the same time, I don't consider it particularly virtuous or merciful.

It quickly deteriorates in very evil behavior, as per "mother" theresa's take on it.

To be clear, I said, 'inevitable consequence' which is not the same as 'holy' or 'encouraged'. So, I don't think that the logic I presented matches what you are describing.

I know nothing about Mother Theresa. My gut response is disbelief that she would think the suffering is holy, rather that caring for the suffering is holy. Are you sure you have this right?

Well isn't that convenient.

As they say in Islam, God is the very best of planners.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If God were to heal an amputee that would be direct evidence of His existence thereby eliminating freewill for people to choose because everyone would simply believe in Him at that point.

That is an absolutely bonkers argument.
Freewill has nothing to do with it. I think you are mistaking it for "gullibility" or something.

Take christian lore, for example.
Satan, according to the story, knows for a fact god exists.
Did that stop him to use his freewill to not follow said god?

Nope.

In fact, we can go a step further....
I think we can all agree that it is evidenced, even proven, beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is a sphere.
Yet, still there are flat earthers out there.

So even very good evidence does not necessarily mean that people will believe.

The final thing is that God says we will be healed in Heaven, not here on Earth. We only exist here for a very, very short amount of time, the only thing God cares about is our belief in Him.

Sounds like a narcistic douche.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God can only affect the material dynamic by entering the simulation through a quantum observer-participant using either the 6th sense or some other means.

To every other member: Beware this poster. They challenge the divine using deception as a tool. I've come across such in the past. Evil takes many forms. But it is contrasted with good as a necessity. The diabolical underpins the divine.

My 7th sense plays ping pong with your god's 6th sense.

 

[George-ananda]

How do believers explain this?

The natural order is the natural order by God's design. There is a grander picture at play than we can see from our limited level. Miracles do occur under special circumstances only but even then they are limited in scope. Our souls transcend the physical making the physical only temporary and less important.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said it is most reliable through faith.

Could you perhaps define what you mean by "reliable" in this context?

 

[dybmh]

God says we will be healed in Heaven, not here on Earth. We only exist here for a very, very short amount of time, the only thing God cares about is our belief in Him.

Sounds like a narcisistic douche.

Possibly the most important moral principle that exists: There are unavoidable divine consequences for good or for bad even if these are not apparent on earth. No one is above the law. Belief in this IS the most important thing, and could save the entire world from countless injustices if it is universal and applied in the correct way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Dude, this is a very inspirational statement.

Thanks, but I am a gal.

You are right. We handicap ourselves with our negative attitudes and mindsets.

Not only that, but some people are mentally or emotionally handicapped, and it is not by choice.
Believe me, I know.

 

[dybmh]

Could you perhaps define what you mean by "reliable" in this context?

Sure.

6) The most reliable method for communion with God is through faith which is compromised by knowledge.

Communion per scripture ( not that you are being asked to believe it, only that this supports the definition ) is required to be 100% true. From the perspective of 'knowing God' this becomes a problem as a result of the vast diversity of each individual. Each individual's comprehension of God, even if they are all reading the same words from the same books, is going to be different. Because of this, only the rare few will be able to communion with God in 100% truth using their 'knowledge of God'.

However, from the perspective of "faith" in the form of:

"Dear sweet Lord, you are far far beyond my capability for knowing and understanding, and I cannot expect myself or others to comprehend who or what you are, thank you for.... may it be your will that... please aid me or others in the following... please grant your blessings towards... I am intending to do this in harmony with your will... what ever it is, I appreciate and trust that you will do what's best, Amen, Amen"

Is more relaible to be 100% true because God is not being put in a box, it's not being rigidly defined, God's will, God's actions, God's plans, etc, none of that is given any sort of rigid definition when it is approached from a perspective of humble faith as opposed to 'knowing'.

Of course, it's possible that the rare few will get it 100% correct, or law of averages, given enough time, sooner or later people will have a happy-accident and happen to hold some sort of mental/emotional construct during their prayer or practice which happens to be 100% true. But that would be unlikely and unreliable. If the intention is to direct words to God and performing actions for the sake of God ( doing God's will ), then avoiding 'knowing' and acting in 'faith' eliminates the possibility of holding a false comprehension of God which would sabatoge the communion, because, like I said, it needs to be 100% true.

Although the words and deeds may still be acceptable, I'm not saying, the words and deeds are in vain if they are lacking this. But there is an added benefit. IF included with the words and deeds, there is 100% true intention to do the will of God, or to communicate with God, and the comprehension of "God" is 100% true or 100% avoided then a communion can occur where the individual has an encounter with God. Avoiding the comprehension is much much more reliable, because God is beyond human comprehension.

 

[Left Coast]

Well we have a difference of opinion that is probably irreconcilable there because I dont see the need to learn through suffering since an omnipotent God could have other means of teaching at its disposal that dont involve suffering.

Millennia of human experience disagree with your view, but so be it.

I've never jumped of a cliff yet if one casts a lifeless object off a cliff to watch it smash at the bottom my desire to remain intact teaches me to not jump off a cliff.

Some things aren't learned through observation in the same way they're learned through direct experience. We have much commonplace evidence in this regard.

Perhaps an omnipotent God as part of its nurture could give us knowledge of the consequences without adding suffering to the equation.

Unfortunately humans do dumb things even when we know the consequences in advance.

Ok, but if you could create an animal with a different nature and give it a different nurture it would be able to make better choices in my view. Since you agree that choices are the product of nature and nurture I dont see how you are saying choices are not largely predetermined by nature and nurture.

"Largely" and "entirely" are very different adverbs, Daniel. You claimed initially that God could make us do what he wants without mind control. You're now freely admitting that mind control is precisely what you want. You're proactively arguing we have no control at all no matter how we slice it. So again, I'm not sure what your beef is with what I initially said. You're arguing against yourself here.

I didn't say *all* choices are random. I was trying to explain that logically at the basic level choices are the result of things such as neural pathways the electrochemical reactions of the brain takes, and these are in turn determined by the cause and effect laws of nature down to the quantum level where there is a random element at play in what occurs. But we don't control either cause and effect or random occurrence in the brain as I understand it.

We, or more specifically our minds, aren't a cause? I would say they are, and we do have a level of control over our minds. Anyone who has ever engaged in meditation or therapy, or consciously and willfully engaged in any activity, understands that. To argue against that, you'll have to argue that's all an illusion. I've never seen convincing evidence of that.

I'm going to include a link to this video which explains how the universe is partly deterministic and partly indeterministic because although I tried to summarise it in the above paragraph I may have done so in a sloppy manner;

Thanks for this. What I'd say here is, she seems like a very intelligent scientist who understands physics quite well - better than you and I, I'd bet. You can tell, though, that she's not a philosopher. For example, she claims that if humans have free will then electrons must have free will. But this doesn't follow logically at all, even from her own explanation of emergent properties. I assume she believes she's conscious...does she therefore believe electrons are conscious? I doubt it. I'd say that choice is a feature of consciousness. So the conclusion that electrons must make choices if humans do just doesn't follow.

She also doesn't grapple here with any of the rather obvious moral problems with determinism that I've explained in another thread. Here are a few videos for you of professional philosophers discussing free will, as well as a Christian apologist because I thought he did a good job laying out the positions and arguments. The honest answer is, the question of free will and determinism is not settled among philosophers.

In some ways, I think the question is a bit like the question of whether we're in a simulation. There's really no way to definitively prove we're not. But the constant feedback of our own conscious experience intuitively tells us we're not, and that the universe seems to operate just as we'd expect if we weren't. Similarly, our conscious experience intuitively informs us that we and other people constantly make real choices in our lives. Sure, there's some unfalsifiable chance that all of that's an illusion. But why would we live our lives under that unproven assumption?

I don't believe my daughter has the freedom to choose anything against her nurture/nature as it is.

But she does have the freedom to choose things within her nature. As we all do.

I have shizophrenia and made poor decisions under the influence of it. After I began taking monthly injections I made significantly better decisions. If it was me that was making those decisions and not the electrochemical nature of my brain why did the chemical injections have any effect on my behaviour?

The argument isn't that physical things have no impact whatsoever on our ability to exercise agency. The argument is whether that impact is exhaustive, ie that they exclude any possibility of us making genuine mental choices between viable options. As I said before, I have yet to see such an argument be effectively made.

Its like this. say there are 3 paths, left, right and far right off a cliff. I may want my daughter to go left, but left and right are reasonable choices. Under the wrong brain chemistry she could see far right off a cliff as the best choice and wouldn't have the free will to choose otherwise.
But under the correct brain chemistry she may choose to go right where I wanted her to go left, but she would not choose to go far right off a cliff. So she would still have choices that may not accord with my wants/desires, but they would be limited to the reasonable ones.

So again, you're talking about mind control. I'll pass. As an adult, I prefer the freedom to make genuine decisions. (And you really can't fault me there on determinism...you actually can't fault me for anything I've said in this conversation ).

I think you have not quite got me. I'm saying that God hasn't given us freedom either way, our choices are dictated by our nature/nurture.

So again, you agree with me that you're advocating for God to use mind control. This is what I said multiple replies ago. Why fight it?

It seems to me like we've both basically said our piece here. I'll let you have the last word, if you want it.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Similarly, our conscious experience intuitively informs us that we and other people constantly make real choices in our lives. Sure, there's some unfalsifiable chance that all of that's an illusion. But why would we live our lives under that unproven assumption?

Intuition is not evidence. The free will question is falsifiable with evidence of determinism. Living under unproven assumptions is arguably what religion is.

 

[Left Coast]

Intuition is not evidence. The free will question is falsifiable with evidence of determinism. Living under unproven assumptions is arguably what religion is.

Your glass house is looking awfully fragile there, friend.

 

[danieldemol]

Millennia of human experience disagree with your view, but so be it.

In my view millenia of human experience are absent of the intervention of an All-Merciful Omnipotent God, so I see such experience as irrelevant to the (to me) easily imaginable other options an omnipotent God would have to make use of.

Unfortunately humans do dumb things even when we know the consequences in advance.

But you personally have never walked off a cliff, and provided you don't experience some profound pain or existential crises that makes walking off a cliff worthwhile you never will, which I see as strong evidence that suffering is not an essential part of learning.

"Largely" and "entirely" are very different adverbs, Daniel.

Great, so does this mean you agree that choices are largely predetermined by nature/nurture? I guess we'll never know since you've decided to let me get in the last word, but if it does the logical implication is that we largely don't have free will in my view, and as for the rest (ie the part that is not largely predetermined by nature/nurture) if it is just determined by purely random features of the quantum level kind I fail to see how you would see that as being a free choice controlled by the individual if it is truly random.

You claimed initially that God could make us do what he wants without mind control. You're now freely admitting that mind control is precisely what you want. You're proactively arguing we have no control at all no matter how we slice it. So again, I'm not sure what your beef is with what I initially said. You're arguing against yourself here.

To me mind control is dictating the choices directly as opposed to setting up our nature to make wise choices. The reason I say that is because as per my left, right and far right analagy to mind control someone would be to say your going to go left, even if left and right are reasonable choices, and then you go go left as opposing to going right but not far right. In essence I am only arguing that God should eliminate unreasonable choices rather than all choices, although I acknowledge that since our choices are either largely predetermined or random God could have a large degree of control over the largely non-random choices we make.

We, or more specifically our minds, aren't a cause? I would say they are, and we do have a level of control over our minds. Anyone who has ever engaged in meditation or therapy, or consciously and willfully engaged in any activity, understands that. To argue against that, you'll have to argue that's all an illusion. I've never seen convincing evidence of that.

I'll try to come around to why I believe that our minds are closer to being like one domino in a chain of causes preceded by the domino of the brain rather than being a causeless cause, stay tuned.

Thanks for this. What I'd say here is, she seems like a very intelligent scientist who understands physics quite well - better than you and I, I'd bet. You can tell, though, that she's not a philosopher. For example, she claims that if humans have free will then electrons must have free will.

No she doesn't in my view. She lists arguments she has heard in favour of free will ( such as the mathematical proof presented to her that *if* humans have free will *then* electrons must have free will) then states why she disagrees with them - in the case of the mathematical proof being that it is irrelevant to the question of whether we actually have free will even if the math is true because it only says what happens *if* we have it, it doesn't say *that* we have it. She also says she finds the idea of electrons having free will to be absurd. So it appears you are knocking over a strawman.

She also doesn't grapple here with any of the rather obvious moral problems with determinism that I've explained in another thread. Here are a few videos for you of professional philosophers discussing free will, as well as a Christian apologist because I thought he did a good job laying out the positions and arguments. The honest answer is, the question of free will and determinism is not settled among philosophers.

I watched all 3 videos.

The first video essentially defines free will as the ability to make decisions, but computer programs with no free will can make decisions based on their programming so I found the definition of free will to be absurd.
It also tries to attribute free willl to being a quantum function but can't explain anything about how the random nature of the quantum realm gives rise to decisions purely at the control of the individual, so just an attribution of agency without evidence or mechanism in my view.

The second video in my view tries to suck us in to believing the consequences of free-will being non-existent are so terrible that we shouldn't accept the proposition, this is known as the fallacy of argument from consequences (for brevity I'll let you look that one up)

The third video in my view repeats the fallacy of argument from consequences, lists one experiment to give an alternative interpretation of, alludes to other un-named neuroscientific experiments which it doesn't even attempt to debunk or give alternative explanation of, simply claims there are alternative explanations, and rather conveniently misses more or less the entire field of psychiatry

In some ways, I think the question is a bit like the question of whether we're in a simulation. There's really no way to definitively prove we're not. But the constant feedback of our own conscious experience intuitively tells us we're not, and that the universe seems to operate just as we'd expect if we weren't. Similarly, our conscious experience intuitively informs us that we and other people constantly make real choices in our lives. Sure, there's some unfalsifiable chance that all of that's an illusion. But why would we live our lives under that unproven assumption?

Biblical literalists sometimes avoid considering the obvious predictions their model would make (if they actually had one) to claim that their God is unfalsifiable in my view. Free will believers likewise seem to avoid consideration of the obvious things that I would expect to see if free-will where true in order to claim that their free-will belief is unfalsifiable. Tossing in speak of proof when science only ever deals in evidence and talk about intuition as though intuition can't be shown to be wrong by science and you have even more in common with the apologist.

But she does have the freedom to choose things within her nature. As we all do.

First of all to be free means to be unconstrained, are you admitting that you believe in constrained will (ie constrained by nature) as opposed to free will? (again I guess we'll never find out because you've bowed out of the conversation). But I think that the electrons in the brain follow a certain path to make a decision because that is the path available to them barring the interference of any random events (which are again outside our control at the quantum level).

The argument isn't that physical things have no impact whatsoever on our ability to exercise agency. The argument is whether that impact is exhaustive, ie that they exclude any possibility of us making genuine mental choices between viable options. As I said before, I have yet to see such an argument be effectively made.

So once again it sounds as though you are not talking about "free" will but about will impacted or constrained by physical things to limited options. Then what is the difference between physical things constraining our options to unreasonable options and an Omnipotent God constraining our options to resonable options (except that one set of options are unreasonable and the other set are reasonable)? Why is it not mind control when nature does it but mind control the second God enters the equation?

So again, you're talking about mind control. I'll pass. As an adult, I prefer the freedom to make genuine decisions. (And you really can't fault me there on determinism...you actually can't fault me for anything I've said in this conversation ).

Just faulted you on pretty much everything you said in my opinion.

It seems to me like we've both basically said our piece here. I'll let you have the last word, if you want it.

Fine by me.
Lets revisit this scenario with a twist;
"Its like this. say there are 3 paths, left, right and far right off a cliff. I may want my daughter to go left, but left and right are reasonable choices. Under the wrong brain chemistry she could see far right off a cliff as the best choice and wouldn't have the free will to choose otherwise.
But under the correct brain chemistry she may choose to go right where I wanted her to go left, but she would not choose to go far right off a cliff. So she would still have choices that may not accord with my wants/desires, but they would be limited to the reasonable ones."

This scenario is not a hypothetical one. My daughter was rushed to hospital with suicidal tendencies in real life and there diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The psychiatrists prescribed her mood stabilisers and she now no longer wants to choose to commit suicide, and therefore doesn't make that choice. So by using drugs doctors have eliminated the choice to commit suicide from my daughter. Where those mind control drugs? When I suggested God do such a thing you appeared to think so. Are you opposed to the entire field of Psychiatry which regularly demonstrably changes the choices people make? If free will exists why not just tell psychiatry patients to make better choices, they should easily be able to choose to do so whether schizophrenic, bipolar or any other of a range of mental illnesses treated chemically if such a thing as unconstrained will is in control of the mind right? (I guess we'll never know your answer to these questions since you have decided to bow out).

 

[viole]

If God were to heal an amputee that would be direct evidence of His existence

Ergo, miracles are such that they could very well be not miracles at all.

Ciao

- viole