I just want to sin!!!

[danieldemol]

Because I believe it exists and I fear it.
Monsters are frightening.

Well some of us don't believe in your personal monster that considers you a sinner and never good enough, and wouldn't believe no matter how hard it makes life for you.

Hence since I do not believe in it I have no reason to fear it.

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well some of us don't believe in your personal monster that considers you a sinner and never good enough, and wouldn't believe no matter how hard it makes life for you.

Hence since I do not believe in it I have no reason to fear it.

I am happy for you that you can just choose not to believe in it, even though I can't.
I believe it exists but I don't really care what it thinks of me as long as I live according to my own conscience.

No, if you don't believe it exists you have nothing to fear. Atheists don't realize how good they have it. Some atheists complain incessantly about not having proof of God, but why? I guess they have some dreamy notion of what it would be like to be a believer.

The grass is not always greener on the other side.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Nothing is indeterminate to an omni god.

..just because you think so?
You haven't shown why .. you make an assertion, whilst I have shown why the assertion is not necessarily true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If the future is known is determinism.

..determined by whom?

If the future is open and not known it is free will.

I know what you mean, when you say that .. but it is always "open", whether it is known or not.
You have no understanding of Einsteinian physics, clearly.

If god knows what will happen the future is not open because it is already set and cannot happen any other way.

..set by whom?

 

[ppp]

..just because you think so?
You haven't shown why .. you make an assertion, whilst I have shown why the assertion is not necessarily true.

Just because you edit out all the text, that doesn't mean that I haven't shown why.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is how a theist sees it. He begins with the belief held by faith that atheists are wrong and therefore defective in their thinking. It causes him to not even consider the commonest reason for atheism - critical thinking. It's not hard to see how faith corrupts reason. People that need compelling evidence before believing see that there is none, and become atheists. That path to atheism didn't even occur to you. It doesn't comport with your faith-based assumptions.

1) Atheists must be arrogant - "Only we think critically, accurately."

2) Atheists are snobs - "Only we few think critically.:

3) Atheists are wrong - As Jordan Peterson put it, who isn't a Christian, "What are we stupid, for thousands of years? Only skeptics are smart? I don't think so."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Atheists are skeptics and not all skeptics are atheists. The two are not synonymous.
Try again.

Redacted:

Atheists are rude and not all rude persons are atheists.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Just because you edit out all the text, that doesn't mean that I haven't shown why.

The only reason why I edit out the text is to keep the points that I'm replying to.
If you think that there is something relevant that I haven't replied to, then please tell me.

As far as I'm concerned .. you have been unable to show me why.

 

[ppp]

As Jordan Peterson put it, who isn't a Christian, "What are we stupid, for thousands of years? Only skeptics are smart? I don't think so."

That was a silly thing to say. We have been wrong about lots of things for thousands of years. From the causes of disease, to the earth going around the sun to slavery. Hell, you claim that all the people with religions that have been around for longer than your are wrong.

Are you claiming that they are stupid, and that only people who hold your beliefs are smart?

As I said, that was a silly thing to say

 

[ppp]

Redacted:

Atheists are rude and not all rude persons are atheists.

If being rude is calling you out on your rudeness, I am good with that.

 

[ppp]

The only reason why I edit out the text is to keep the points that I'm replying to.

I don't see any evidence of that. All I see is you cutting out the reasoning, and repeating a demand for reasoning.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't see any evidence of that. All I see is you cutting out the reasoning, and repeating a demand for reasoning.

Which post of yours are you referring to?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The reason that man can predict eclipses and the return of Halley's comet is because the position of any heavenly body is determined by the laws of physics enough to be able to say what in the heavens will be where and when.

Now, lets give those objects consciousness, and the illusion of free will. They're aware, and they want to continue moving in these mathematically determinate ways, because they are not the source of those desires. They receive them, and are happy to comply, never noticing that these ideas didn't come from consciousness, but rather, were delivered to it by determinate physical processes. We can still predict where they'll be in such a world.

Now we go one step further, and give these heavenly bodies the freedom to decide where they'll go. They choose as they go, and their choices are free (indeterministic). Guess what happens? You can no longer predict their future positions. I understand that if you need for these planets to have free will and their paths be determined because religious faith constrains you to hold this belief, that you simply say that what you believe is possible to people who process information differently and have decided that the idea isn't coherent.

What has free-will got to do with heavenly bodies? As far as I'm aware, we are discussing the concept of humans having the capacity to choose possible courses of action unimpeded.

It was a comparison of what a world in which will was not deterministic, but in which conscious agents felt desires, acted on them, and felt free to have done differently even though they were not, with one with bona fide free will, where those desires were freely chosen and not caused by prior events. One is a deterministic world in which the future such as where Pluto will be in the time it would take a space probe to reach it can be reliably predicted, and in the other, the heavenly bodies have free will.

I used inanimate objects such as planets, and first gave them the illusion of free will so that it would be clear that these objects weren't actually choosing anything even though they had the experience of choosing. Their world was deterministic, and the future of their "choices," such as whether to continue moving according to the predictable laws of physics, was predictable.

Then I changed them and gave them will that was free, which, being indeterministic, could not be worked out in advance. In this world, Pluto, if conscious and endowed with actual free will and the ability to change its path according to that will, would be free to not be where the NASA scientists expected to be.

If that was confusing, then just start with human beings with the illusion of free will and compare the predictability of their world with that of humans possessing the actual freedom to author their wills. The two worlds would differ in that the latter would contain indeterministic elements, and therefore could not be predicted or known in advance.

The argument that the theists make is that their deity could know those choices before they were made. It's an incoherent claim. It describes a world that has elements of indeterminism the future of which can be determined by a sufficiently powerful processor (omniscient).

So if you can, please explain why my argument that a world that contains uncaused (free) will could not be predicted accurately, why only a deterministic world could be predicted to any time in the future, and why such a world could not contain free will, but at best, the illusion of free will, like conscious planets following the laws of celestial mechanics thinking that their experiencing of the tug of gravity was their will to move, their choice.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It was a comparison of what a world in which will was not deterministic, but in which conscious agents felt desires, acted on them, and felt free to have done differently even though they were not, with one with bona fide free will, where those desires were freely chosen and not caused by prior events. One is a deterministic world in which the future such as where Pluto will be in the time it would take a space probe to reach it can be reliably predicted, and in the other, the heavenly bodies have free will.

I used inanimate objects such as planets, and first gave them the illusion of free will so that it would be clear that these objects weren't actually choosing anything even though they had the experience of choosing. Their world was deterministic, and the future of their "choices," such as whether to continue moving according to the predictable laws of physics, was predictable.

Then I changed them and gave them will that was free, which, being indeterministic, could not be worked out in advance. In this world, Pluto, if conscious and endowed with actual free will and the ability to change its path according to that will, would be free to not be where the NASA scientists expected to be

..and I skimmed over this, as it didn't seem particularly relevant to the subject at hand .. namely whether human beings have free-will or not, irrespective of whether we live in a deterministic universe or indeterministic one.
It makes no difference to my argument.

If that was confusing, then just start with human beings with the illusion of free will and compare the predictability of their world with that of humans possessing the actual freedom to author their wills. The two worlds would differ in that the latter would contain indeterministic elements, and therefore could not be predicted or known in advance.

I have never said anything about G-d predicting our futures.
My argument involves the example of special relativity.

The argument that the theists make is that their deity could know those choices before they were made. It's an incoherent claim. It describes a world that has elements of indeterminism the future of which can be determined by a sufficiently powerful processor (omniscient).

Again, it's not my argument. I will paste my post #347 below, which I referred you to earlier..

--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think that the block of events called the future is not known, then you are saying that they are "not fixed" .. right?
..but as soon as they are known, then they ARE fixed .. right?

If you detach yourself from the concept of "now", and look on from outside at a block of events that constitute both the past and the future, they must be all fixed.
Einstein realised that from his work on special relativity.

The problem lies with your perception. The future represents a block of events .. just like the past. Indeed, the future eventually becomes the past.

If you had no memory of events in the past, does that make them not fixed, because they are unknown to you?
No, of course not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The future has to be something, whether it is known or unknown. It is dependent on what we choose, amongst other things that are beyond our control.

Whether it is known or unknown does not force us to choose something, any more than the past being fixed by our choices does.

It is about HOW somebody knows the future .. that's all.

 

[Valjean]

1) Atheists must be arrogant - "Only we think critically, accurately."

2) Atheists are snobs - "Only we few think critically.:

3) Atheists are wrong - As Jordan Peterson put it, who isn't a Christian, "What are we stupid, for thousands of years? Only skeptics are smart? I don't think so."

Atheists are mathematically and logically correct. Is that arrogance?
Snobs? You feel attacked. You have no reasonable or logical response. You know you are not critically analyzing facts. So you name-call.
Still waiting for a reasonable defense of theism. For thousands of years people have told stories and sought simplistic, unevidenced "answers." It got us nowhere, and sparked endless war and conflicts. Unlike the scientific revolution of the last century there has been no theological progress.

 

[Valjean]

Redacted:

Atheists are rude and not all rude persons are atheists.

How are atheists rude? Defending one's position, or pointing out problems in theological doctrine, is not rude, however threatening theists may perceive it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

..determined by whom?


I know what you mean, when you say that .. but it is always "open", whether it is known or not.
You have no understanding of Einsteinian physics, clearly.


..set by whom?

Relativity, as it's called, has nothing to do with it. And according to Einstein God doesn't play with dice. He did believe in a determinist world. Only it wasn't an omniscient god who knows all and set all into motion, it was the Laws of Nature exerting their influence on Nature (of which we are a part of).
If there future is known amd cannot happen any other way, just as the past cannot happen any other way, then free will does not and cannot exist.

.set by whom?

Presumably by your god if everything is in accordance to his will and set in motion and known by him.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As Jordan Peterson put it, who isn't a Christian, "

He describes himself as one.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Relativity, as it's called, has nothing to do with it. And according to Einstein God doesn't play with dice. He did believe in a determinist world. Only it wasn't an omniscient god who knows all and set all into motion, it was the Laws of Nature exerting their influence on Nature (of which we are a part of).

I'm not referring to Einstein's beliefs, I'm referring to the theory.

If there future is known amd cannot happen any other way, just as the past cannot happen any other way, then free will does not and cannot exist.

That is what your mind is telling you. It is an assertion without proof.
You haven't attempted to show me why .. you just state it as if it is obvious.

Presumably by your god if everything is in accordance to his will and set in motion and known by him.

Wrong.
The future is determined by our choices, amongst other things that are beyond our control.
The reason why you think that a fixed future is completely beyond our control is due to your perception of time.
You perceive that the future "hasn't happened yet" .. but according to Einstein's theory, it is only a perception due to being in a frame of reference.

Do you know anything about special relativity?
It seems that you do not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not referring to Einstein'

His beliefs were heavily rooted in science. He believed in a deterministic world because the Laws of Nature appear to be.

Do you know anything about special relativity?
It seems that you do not.

It really seems you don't because with Relativity time and space are one in the same. It can pass differently depending on relative position and such, but it doesn't mean the future has already happened based on some perspectives. It's not the future we see, but the past. Like the sunlight we see happened several minutes ago but we see it as now. Starlight that happened ages ago we can only see now.
It doesn't go the other way.