• Stephen Fry hits back at accusations of Islamophobia
    344 replies, posted
is this r/atheism or something are we all euphoric currently?
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;42095120]No, idiots who practice religion use it as such. There are a lot of really great religious people in the world who follow the core beliefs and frankly are better off for it. The fact that they're smart enough to know what applies to the modern world and what doesn't shows a lot more in them than dropping it and claiming that all religion is for idiots.[/QUOTE] No, the only thing that shows in them is the ability for cognitive dissonance.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42094662]when you're literally the only person not getting it, i just don't know how else to explain it to you. i've tried so many different ways and many other people get it, you just don't. I'm not sure what to say. [/QUOTE] If what you've said is to make any logical sense, you have to make the connection between how to know(to regard a truth) is the same as to determination(to cause something to occur). Also you have to state why, if an entity's attribute interferes with something, the entity itself does not necessarily interfere with itself. These are the two premises that I have seen used to back up the argument that omniscience interferes with free will, but I have not seen any attempt at showing how they are true. To me, the two premises seem to be contradictions and that is why I don't get the argument. [QUOTE]but it doesn't matter. They grow up or they stay young, to god it's all the same, all time is at all times to him, you being 10, and you being 15 are the same for him and experienced simultaneously so he knows the choices you make before you made them and he defined the qualities you had up to that choice.[/QUOTE] Well, from God's perspective time would be an aspect of his creation that he views externally(as opposed to us being creatures within it). That doesn't mean our different states of being are one in the same to God, that would contradict omniscience as it is true that there was a set time when I was 10 and a set time when I was 15. [QUOTE]So the similarity of stories being passed down through history to you screams god given tales, not long used stories that have lasted ages? Noah, meet gilgamesh, jesus, meet mithra, etc. That doesn't make you question your god and your scripture?[/QUOTE] If anything, ancient Judaism was radically different from the other religions and cultures. A few parallels in stories don't prove anything against that. I know little about the Gilgamesh epic, though I must admit it has astonishing similarities. In any case, this doesn't come close to proving that ancient Judaism was based on ancient Persian paganism. As for the supposed parallels between Mithra and Jesus, I have heard that the necessary interpretations to make this parallel have to take ridiculous liberties as well. Not to mention one of the more set in stone interpretations is that Mithra was born on December 25th, the thing is though, there is no scriptural record of Jesus' birth date. [QUOTE]Christmas is literally the winter solstice and an act of sun worshipping. Doesn't that seemingly coincide with the birth of jesus? Seems important. [/QUOTE] Christmas, Easter, Hallows eve and whatever other holidays the medieval Catholic Church devised were attempts to ease the cultural change for Christian-pagan converts into CHristian society and religion. Besides, what signs are there of [QUOTE]Whilst I'm not one to defend mormon history of religion, it is a mythology, just like the greater totality of christianity and every religion ever, so it's disrespectful to act above them whilst being in their boat, just a parallel boat. [/QUOTE] Mormon theology relies on records that nobody is allowed to see, but act as the core of their theology, really it's only recently that they even started trying to connect themselves with Christianity(our beliefs are that different). Jehovah's witnesses rely on viewing scripture from an extreme literalist perspective and also horribly misinterpret several parts of scripture in direct opposition to what historical church theology has dictated to be what scripture says. I don't mean to act above them in any way, a cult is simply the term for what their groups are. [QUOTE]Scripture is "true" because of faith.[/QUOTE] Is this an argument you're stating? [QUOTE]Yes I know dantes inferno is the insperation for most interpretations of hell, and yes, according to original catholic doctrine(you know, the original church) hell is just a place absent of god, but as you say, that is still suffering and pain. [/QUOTE] That suffering and pain is the result of not having God in their lives though. Those who turned away from God do not wish to have God in their lives, so they get their wish. [QUOTE]Now personally, I don't think you will ever see the idea of free will as the rest of us have so I'm not sure this discussion can go on any further because that will forever be a point of contention.[/QUOTE] That seems to be the case, unless you have some backing to the premises vital for your argument.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42103901]If what you've said is to make any logical sense, you have to make the connection between how to know(to regard a truth) is the same as to determination(to cause something to occur).[/QUOTE] When one see's all time at all times, one would see ones choices as a pathway, not a series of choices, but a linear path through life that they took. You would also see that nothing would ever change that this is what they did. Yes, they chose that action, but they couldn't choose another one. It isn't an interference of free will as much as it is a situation that creates only limited will, hence a pre determined path. I personally need the logic of how omniscience and free will work together. I understand that he is not interfering in a classical sense(I don't want to get into the part about him creating us here too) but he's creating a situation in which nothing is mobile or free, it is set in a stone, omniscient pathway. [QUOTE]Well, from God's perspective time would be an aspect of his creation that he views externally(as opposed to us being creatures within it). That doesn't mean our different states of being are one in the same to God, that would contradict omniscience as it is true that there was a set time when I was 10 and a set time when I was 15. [/QUOTE] Yes but he understand the concept of age in human constraints. He's omniscient so he knows that he is taking the young, or the innocent, or those who haven't had a chance to accept him by never having had the chance to be exposed to your own particular god and religion. [QUOTE]If anything, ancient Judaism was radically different from the other religions and cultures. A few parallels in stories don't prove anything against that. I know little about the Gilgamesh epic, though I must admit it has astonishing similarities. In any case, this doesn't come close to proving that ancient Judaism was based on ancient Persian paganism. As for the supposed parallels between Mithra and Jesus, I have heard that the necessary interpretations to make this parallel have to take ridiculous liberties as well. Not to mention one of the more set in stone interpretations is that Mithra was born on December 25th, the thing is though, there is no scriptural record of Jesus' birth date. [/QUOTE] The similarities between religions is a well studied fact. Religions are transmorphic cultural forces. All religions absorb the religion that was in the region before it and work it into their own rituals and world view. This isn't debatable. Religions don't just pop up from nowhere. They have clear mythological beginnings in history and we can see the adaptations of them to other cultures. This strikes me as odd that the one true god is still a transmorphic religion and not a true religion of pure origins. [QUOTE]Mormon theology relies on records that nobody is allowed to see, but act as the core of their theology, really it's only recently that they even started trying to connect themselves with Christianity(our beliefs are that different). Jehovah's witnesses rely on viewing scripture from an extreme literalist perspective and also horribly misinterpret several parts of scripture in direct opposition to what historical church theology has dictated to be what scripture says. I don't mean to act above them in any way, a cult is simply the term for what their groups are.[/QUOTE] You are still not getting the point. Your religion is no less created or crafted than theirs. you're just saying "welp nope, not real". [QUOTE]Is this an argument you're stating?[/QUOTE] Prove to me the world flooded in 40 days and 40 nights, that this story doesn't have any historical parralels to any other historical tale. Prove to me that the destruction of sodom and gamorrah was a seige laid by angels. You can not state that scripture is fact without proving either the tales that need to be true, to give you the literalist view, or that the morals in the book are without a doubt superior to any other moral code(this is a subjective and difficult argument but, with cruelties in the bible that need to be hand picked out, I don't think there's a point) to prove it is a pluralist view and correct in that. You don't get to claim my views are based on evidence that I have to have faith in to believe and not realize your beliefs are not all that different at all. [QUOTE]That suffering and pain is the result of not having God in their lives though. Those who turned away from God do not wish to have God in their lives, so they get their wish.[/QUOTE] So you're saying that the people on this planet who never had a chance to meet the christian and proper god, chose not to? No. [QUOTE]That seems to be the case, unless you have some backing to the premises vital for your argument.[/QUOTE] Well you discount evidence that neuro science or other science fields have done on the work of free will and brain chemistry so what hope is there I don't have scripture to throw at you and if this is an argument about scripture as truth, then I have to tell you that you can't throw out evidence as being too "evidentalist" as a counter without every one thinking you're defining the terms of the argument to your favour only.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42104162]When one see's all time at all times, one would see ones choices as a pathway, not a series of choices, but a linear path through life that they took. You would also see that nothing would ever change that this is what they did. Yes, they chose that action, but they couldn't choose another one. It isn't an interference of free will as much as it is a situation that creates only limited will, hence a pre determined path. I personally need the logic of how omniscience and free will work together. I understand that he is not interfering in a classical sense(I don't want to get into the part about him creating us here too) but he's creating a situation in which nothing is mobile or free, it is set in a stone, omniscient pathway.[/QUOTE] Well, God being omniscient knows the truth that we make the choice and that those choices set a path, just like how following a flowchart by selecting each next step yourself creates a path. The fact that the path is limited doesn't really play a role in the fact that you still chose step A and not step B. Also, what do you mean by limited will? Is free will measured in orders of magnitudes or is its presence/absence a binary thing? If post-science is to know truths about the past, we can agree that a person who knows these things does not affect them simply by knowing them. So why should prescience by nature be different when it is the same as post-science in how things are known, but the things that are known are in the future. Now if we combine the two and add everything in between, we have omniscience and considering the nature of post-science and prescience, no real reason to think that it interferes with free will by nature. [QUOTE]Yes but he understand the concept of age in human constraints. He's omniscient so he knows that he is taking the young, or the innocent, or those who haven't had a chance to accept him by never having had the chance to be exposed to your own particular god and religion. [/QUOTE] As I've stated, there is no solid doctrine stating what is done with the innocent under God's judgement. All I can say is that God favors the child-like mind-set that the innocent have and while just, is merciful as well. In the end though, the innocent must be judged with the same standards as everyone else, so I cannot say what is done with them for sure. [QUOTE]The similarities between religions is a well studied fact. Religions are transmorphic cultural forces. All religions absorb the religion that was in the region before it and work it into their own rituals and world view. This isn't debatable. Religions don't just pop up from nowhere. They have clear mythological beginnings in history and we can see the adaptations of them to other cultures. This strikes me as odd that the one true god is still a transmorphic religion and not a true religion of pure origins. [/QUOTE] Well, why are you assuming Christianity or ancient Judaism are transmorphic based off of similarities with other religions. Keep in mind that such ancient religions have historical origins and therefore cover historical events. Events that occurred at the time could have been interpreted to work with several different religions and in some cases texts could have been directly borrowed(such is the case with Islam using the old testament). Also scripture has been very well preserved in comparison to such texts as the Q'ran, the Dead Sea scrolls are part of the evidence pointing towards their amazing preservation. [QUOTE]You are still not getting the point. Your religion is no less created or crafted than theirs. you're just saying "welp nope, not real".[/QUOTE] My religion doesn't rely on texts that nobody can see or horribly inaccurate methods of interpretation, so that is not the case. [QUOTE]Prove to me the world flooded in 40 days and 40 nights, that this story doesn't have any historical parralels to any other historical tale. Prove to me that the destruction of sodom and gamorrah was a seige laid by angels. You can not state that scripture is fact without proving either the tales that need to be true, to give you the literalist view, or that the morals in the book are without a doubt superior to any other moral code(this is a subjective and difficult argument but, with cruelties in the bible that need to be hand picked out, I don't think there's a point) to prove it is a pluralist view and correct in that. You don't get to claim my views are based on evidence that I have to have faith in to believe and not realize your beliefs are not all that different at all.[/QUOTE] The flood was said to cover all the world of men, back then that wasn't a very large area of land, but might as well have been a global flood from the perspective of human civilization. The destruction of Sodom & Gommorah was never recorded as being at the hands of angels, simply a result of fire raining from the heavens(whether it was a spiritual intervention or a cosmological event, I cannot say). In any case, people like to concentrate on the more miraculous events that require divine intervention when reading the Old Testament, but that's completely ignoring the fact that a majority of it is very real history being recorded that can be verified much more easily. Prove to me that Kind David never lived or did the things that he did, prove to me that the recorded tower of Babel never existed, that Jericho never existed, or that all the strict laws of ancient Judaism were not actually real. Just because there are a few events that are difficult to believe does note discount the general historicity of scripture. Not to mention a lot of events, such as the flood or the parting of the read sea, have been romanticized in popular culture or misinterpreted to be on a much grander scale than they needed to be. [QUOTE]So you're saying that the people on this planet who never had a chance to meet the christian and proper god, chose not to? No.[/QUOTE] I never said that, I said that those who choose to turn away from God get as they wish and enter eternity without him. [QUOTE]Well you discount evidence that neuro science or other science fields have done on the work of free will and brain chemistry so what hope is there[/QUOTE] This is unrelated to what I was saying, but how does neuroscience in itself disprove the concept of free will exactly? This is out of the context of the discussion, but how can purely objective scientific findings disprove a philosophical concept that has always and will govern how humanity practically interacts with itself?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42109791]Well, God being omniscient knows the truth that we make the choice and that those choices set a path, just like how following a flowchart by selecting each next step yourself creates a path. The fact that the path is limited doesn't really play a role in the fact that you still chose step A and not step B.[/QUOTE] Then it isn't free will...? It's "a or b" not free will. [QUOTE]Also, what do you mean by limited will? Is free will measured in orders of magnitudes or is its presence/absence a binary thing?[/QUOTE] See above [QUOTE]If post-science is to know truths about the past, we can agree that a person who knows these things does not affect them simply by knowing them. So why should prescience by nature be different when it is the same as post-science in how things are known, but the things that are known are in the future. Now if we combine the two and add everything in between, we have omniscience and considering the nature of post-science and prescience, no real reason to think that it interferes with free will by nature. [/QUOTE] I'm sorry I don't actually understand what you mean here. [QUOTE]Well, why are you assuming Christianity or ancient Judaism are transmorphic based off of similarities with other religions. Keep in mind that such ancient religions have historical origins and therefore cover historical events. Events that occurred at the time could have been interpreted to work with several different religions and in some cases texts could have been directly borrowed(such is the case with Islam using the old testament). Also scripture has been very well preserved in comparison to such texts as the Q'ran, the Dead Sea scrolls are part of the evidence pointing towards their amazing preservation. [/QUOTE] They are. Historically they've been studied well enough, long enough, and in enough depth for us to happily and easily relate many of the abrahamic religions to other various religions in the regions. This isn't secret, this is public knowledge. [QUOTE]My religion doesn't rely on texts that nobody can see or horribly inaccurate methods of interpretation, so that is not the case.[/QUOTE] Before reading was common, the church told people what was in the bible by reading it to them. They have been noted as having misread, and lied to the people to better control them in a time of their own inability to read. So, it once wasn't so different. What defines your methods of interpretation as "accurate" then? [QUOTE]The flood was said to cover all the world of men, back then that wasn't a very large area of land, but might as well have been a global flood from the perspective of human civilization. The destruction of Sodom & Gommorah was never recorded as being at the hands of angels, simply a result of fire raining from the heavens(whether it was a spiritual intervention or a cosmological event, I cannot say). In any case, people like to concentrate on the more miraculous events that require divine intervention when reading the Old Testament, but that's completely ignoring the fact that a majority of it is very real history being recorded that can be verified much more easily.[/QUOTE] In the time where the flooding of the earth is supposed to happen, people had spread over a fairly good distance of the world, and a flooding of a large valley was not "The flooding of the lands of man" because they had far out reached the so called biblical flood. So you can verify how sodom and gamorrah died? And you can prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt it was godly intervention? Yes, people like to focus on it because there is a LOT of it in the bible. Yes, some of it was real history, however horribly rewritten and repurposed to the purpose of religion [QUOTE]Prove to me that Kind David never lived or did the things that he did, prove to me that the recorded tower of Babel never existed, that Jericho never existed, or that all the strict laws of ancient Judaism were not actually real. Just because there are a few events that are difficult to believe does note discount the general historicity of scripture. Not to mention a lot of events, such as the flood or the parting of the read sea, have been romanticized in popular culture or misinterpreted to be on a much grander scale than they needed to be.[/QUOTE] Those things historically happening have [b]NOTHING[/b] whatsoever to do with god, proving god, or proving scripture. That's history, not scripture. Them being true is not proof of god and I don't see how it is at all\ also when I said prove to me, you refused to. So you have nothing to prove but you fervently believe it. So what point is a discussion then [QUOTE]I never said that, I said that those who choose to turn away from God get as they wish and enter eternity without him.[/QUOTE] They never had a chance. Read. Please. Just read. Imagine, a tribe of people located in the amazon, they believe in the forest, and nature, and not gods, they just focus on survival, they aren't advanced enough to know about anything else. They do not know god. They do not choose, they never had a choice, so, they go to hell because of this...? [QUOTE]This is unrelated to what I was saying, but how does neuroscience in itself disprove the concept of free will exactly? This is out of the context of the discussion, but how can purely objective scientific findings disprove a philosophical concept that has always and will govern how humanity practically interacts with itself?[/QUOTE] If you saw an explosion 1000 years ago, and someone asked you "How does proving that's a chemical reaction deny that it is a explosion from god?" how would you feel? An explosion is a chemical and physical process, it is limited by the particles in the effect. A brain is no less different. It is a series of neurons, fluids and materials that interact with each other and use a chemicals to power reactions and thoughts. It is not magical. It is defined and limited by the physical world. So if it's limited by a physical world, and I say, am lacking a specific chemical, it creates an imbalance, and now I am [b]unable[/b] on a true physical level, from feeling a certain way. If you say this isn't true, then please, throw out modern neuro sciences, modern pyshco-phramacology and never let those fields be studied because if it isn't true, then the brain MUST work through divine magic or something.
[QUOTE=PSI Guy;42096321]is this r/atheism or something are we all euphoric currently?[/QUOTE] just saying those words doesn't actually do anything any more dude
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42109791]Well, God being omniscient knows the truth that we make the choice and that those choices set a path, just like how following a flowchart by selecting each next step yourself creates a path. The fact that the path is limited doesn't really play a role in the fact that you still chose step A and not step B. [/QUOTE] It can't be a flowchart if god already knows which choices you're going to make before you make them. Unless you can somehow fool god about which choice you are going to make make, it isn't a real flowchart (and if you can fool god then he obviously didn't know what the future was going to be). It becomes a script if god knows which choice you are going to make before you make it, even if you go through the whole decision making process and come to the same conclusion that he did. You're making the mistake of equating knowledge of the past with knowledge of the future. This is a situation kind of analogous to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. When you observe a particle you collapse the wave function and pin it down into a known place. When you know the outcome of the future definitively, you collapse the other potential futures. Before the particle is observed you might have a map of a probability field where that particle might be. If god doesn't know the outcome of the future definitively then there still is the potential for a sort of flowchart. The problem with that situation is then that unless the future is somehow excluded from the set of all knowable things, god isn't omniscient, and that if you exclude the future from the set of all knowable things you end up diminishing his power, calling into question the claim of omnipotence. This is why I brought up the reel of film earlier. If god has knowledge of the of the future before it happens then its like watching a movie that you've seen or made with someone else that has not seen it yet. You are god. You've already seen the movie. You know exactly what happens in it word for word, line by line. You've got every detail of every scene, even the ones that didn't make it into the final cut. Your buddy Frank on the couch next to you hasn't seen it yet. Maybe he's done some research on it, maybe he's watched a few trailers, but he really doesn't know what happens exactly in it yet. Throughout the movie Frank tries to predict what happens next. Maybe he thinks Captain Fantastic will fall for the lure of Shady McQueen's aphrodisiacal tennis court, maybe he won't. You already know that Shady kills Captain Fantastic at the 30 minute mark. Frank has no control over the outcome or the progression of the movie. He can formulate opinions and make predictions, but since the movie is already recorded it doesn't matter. Frank might be surprised by the outcome, but he can't change it. If the entire future is known at every second from our vantage point by god, the decisions have already been made. We are just Franks waiting for the next few frames of film. If you say that god is unrestricted by time and what not and try to distance your definition from that problem, then you diminish the value of your term. If you can't relate the term to the things we can measure and experience, what is the point? Saying the problems associated with our frame of reference are irrelevant because this entity isn't bound by them just increases the distance between that entity and us. At that point you're just setting up a definition that is essentially meaningless from our perspective, let alone for this discussion.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42109911]Then it isn't free will...? It's "a or b" not free will.[/QUOTE] I used the premise of a choice between A or B as an example, of course life allows for much more complex choices with a greater variety of options. The variety of options is irrelevant in terms of free will though, the question is if you have the ability to choose between them yourself or not. I haven't seen any display of how one doesn't have the ability to choose for themselves just because an omniscient being exists. [QUOTE]See above[/QUOTE] So what you mean is free will with a limited amount of options? That's still fully free will though, it just means that we don't have an infinite amount of options to choose from. [QUOTE]I'm sorry I don't actually understand what you mean here.[/QUOTE] If someone knows all truths in the past they do not control the wills of those in history, so why should it be any different with someone who knows all truths in the future? Why should it be any different if we take both the ability to know all truths in the past and future and join them together with everything in between, the product is omniscience and it does not interfere with free will by default. [QUOTE]They are. Historically they've been studied well enough, long enough, and in enough depth for us to happily and easily relate many of the abrahamic religions to other various religions in the regions. This isn't secret, this is public knowledge. [/QUOTE] What do you mean relate, do you claim that ancient Jewish culture emerged from the surrounding cultures of the time? That a monotheistic religion that condemned human sacrifice and sexual immorality came from religions with vast pantheons of gods, made use of temple brothels and openly sacrificed people to said gods? I've heard about a few similarities, but never that we have the full origins of ancient Judaism mapped out, is that what you're claiming? [QUOTE]Before reading was common, the church told people what was in the bible by reading it to them. They have been noted as having misread, and lied to the people to better control them in a time of their own inability to read. So, it once wasn't so different. What defines your methods of interpretation as "accurate" then?[/QUOTE] One major thing is the Nicene Creed, it was a document put out after the first Council of Nicaea that occurred in response to the heretical doctrine on the Christ of the then excommunicated bishop Arias. All of Christendom was represented in this council and after determining Arianism(the teachings of Arius) to not be Christianity, the Nicene Creed was made to ensure that there was a singular and correct document directly pointing out what scripture taught Christianity was. Yes, later on the Catholic church began grossly abusing its hold on scripture, either by using it incorrectly or even adding/subtracting doctrine. In the end though it resulted in the protestant reformation, who's main goal was to turn away from the Catholic church's aforementioned misdeeds and to give readable translated scriptures to everyone. While I hold great respect for the Catholic Church as an entity that upheld scripture and Christian doctrine for many of its earlier years, I tend more towards the protestant view of removing the idea of tradition holding as much merit as scripture. [QUOTE]In the time where the flooding of the earth is supposed to happen, people had spread over a fairly good distance of the world, and a flooding of a large valley was not "The flooding of the lands of man" because they had far out reached the so called biblical flood. So you can verify how sodom and gamorrah died? And you can prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt it was godly intervention?[/QUOTE] Well I'm not sure when you consider the biblical flood to have happened, but there area several plausible theories about a flood that occurred in the Mesopotamian and Persian gulf areas. As for Sodom and Gomorrah, of course I can't prove that their destruction was divine intervention. This really doesn't have any effect on the validity on the rest of the text though, because there's much more to even just the Old Testament than the destruction of the cities. [QUOTE]Yes, people like to focus on it because there is a LOT of it in the bible. Yes, some of it was real history, however horribly rewritten and repurposed to the purpose of religion Those things historically happening have [b]NOTHING[/b] whatsoever to do with god, proving god, or proving scripture. That's history, not scripture. Them being true is not proof of god and I don't see how it is at all\ also when I said prove to me, you refused to. So you have nothing to prove but you fervently believe it. So what point is a discussion then[/QUOTE] I'd advise reading the Old Testament before making such claims on it, because a vast majority of it covers historical events such as migrations, invasions, battles, wars and monarchy. Not to mention the meticulous records on Jewish cultural law. Also just because something has been historically proven to have happened doesn't mean you get to automatically omit it from scripture, those aspects are just as much part of the bible as the rest. In any case, I thought you wanted to discuss the validity of scripture and not whether it proves God or not. [QUOTE]They never had a chance. Read. Please. Just read. Imagine, a tribe of people located in the amazon, they believe in the forest, and nature, and not gods, they just focus on survival, they aren't advanced enough to know about anything else. They do not know god. They do not choose, they never had a choice, so, they go to hell because of this...? [/QUOTE] What I was implying with that statement was that I made no claims on what happens to those who are innocent and those who have never heard of Christianity, I only made claims on those that actively turned their back on God. I can't say for sure what happens to anyone who has not actively made a choice when they are put under divine judgement. [QUOTE]If you saw an explosion 1000 years ago, and someone asked you "How does proving that's a chemical reaction deny that it is a explosion from god?" how would you feel? An explosion is a chemical and physical process, it is limited by the particles in the effect.[/QUOTE] I would admit that just because I know how an explosion works does not disprove in any way that God conducted the explosion. I'd instead turn to scripture to try and show why it's unlikely that God would do such a thing. [QUOTE]A brain is no less different. It is a series of neurons, fluids and materials that interact with each other and use a chemicals to power reactions and thoughts. It is not magical. It is defined and limited by the physical world. So if it's limited by a physical world, and I say, am lacking a specific chemical, it creates an imbalance, and now I am [b]unable[/b] on a true physical level, from feeling a certain way.[/QUOTE] As much as you hate it when I mention it, this is your naturalistic interpretation of scientific evidence, not the scientific evidence. All that science has proven is that the brain is the main controller of the Central Nervous System, that it has several different components that serve different functions, that these functions work through a series of electrical impulses along axons that end at terminals that connect at synapses between brain cells that exchange neurochemicals to activate/deactivate certain parts of the brain at a time. Those are the facts, now the naturalistic interpretation of these facts is that this is all there is to a person's mind as the naturalistic perspective assumes that there is nothing beyond the natural world. [QUOTE]If you say this isn't true, then please, throw out modern neuro sciences, modern pyshco-phramacology and never let those fields be studied because if it isn't true, then the brain MUST work through divine magic or something.[/QUOTE] I'm not refuting any scientific facts, just the naturalistic perspective, I have absolutely no issue with us understanding how to better the health of our bodies and understand their intricate workings.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42112091]I used the premise of a choice between A or B as an example, of course life allows for much more complex choices with a greater variety of options. The variety of options is irrelevant in terms of free will though, the question is if you have the ability to choose between them yourself or not. I haven't seen any display of how one doesn't have the ability to choose for themselves just because an omniscient being exists. So what you mean is free will with a limited amount of options? That's still fully free will though, it just means that we don't have an infinite amount of options to choose from.[/QUOTE] God gives you a or b. I call this limited will. You call this free will because you're excersing some form of chjoice. But to get to a or b, you went through a or b before that and had the same problem. you didn't make the choices you got to get there, you just went to the left or the right, which at the end of the day isn't much choice or free will at all. Certainly not deserving of the definition of "free will". [QUOTE]If someone knows all truths in the past they do not control the wills of those in history, so why should it be any different with someone who knows all truths in the future? Why should it be any different if we take both the ability to know all truths in the past and future and join them together with everything in between, the product is omniscience and it does not interfere with free will by default.[/QUOTE] If you see all time at all times there is no past or present or future. It's constant and finished all at once. It's completed the story arc at the same time it's never began. Knowing how everything is and ever could be defeats the very idea of choice, what could be a choice when it's a script? [QUOTE]What do you mean relate, do you claim that ancient Jewish culture emerged from the surrounding cultures of the time? That a monotheistic religion that condemned human sacrifice and sexual immorality came from religions with vast pantheons of gods, made use of temple brothels and openly sacrificed people to said gods? I've heard about a few similarities, but never that we have the full origins of ancient Judaism mapped out, is that what you're claiming?[/QUOTE] Are you claiming the origins of judaism are divine and not like any other religion on earth in that they have factual proof? No i'm not claiming that but I am saying that we know how religions absorb, create, and spread. It's a studied aspect of them. We can pick out many traditions that are not unique to judaism that are from other cultures at the time in similar regions, or do you seriously think all cultures but yours rely on this function? Seriously? [QUOTE]Well I'm not sure when you consider the biblical flood to have happened, but there area several plausible theories about a flood that occurred in the Mesopotamian and Persian gulf areas. As for Sodom and Gomorrah, of course I can't prove that their destruction was divine intervention. This really doesn't have any effect on the validity on the rest of the text though, because there's much more to even just the Old Testament than the destruction of the cities.[/QUOTE] I'd advise reading the Old Testament before making such claims on it, because a vast majority of it covers historical events such as migrations, invasions, battles, wars and monarchy. Not to mention the meticulous records on Jewish cultural law. Also just because something has been historically proven to have happened doesn't mean you get to automatically omit it from scripture, those aspects are just as much part of the bible as the rest. In any case, I thought you wanted to discuss the validity of scripture and not whether it proves God or not.[/QUOTE] You're using scripture to define how it's right, if it's right, it's proof of god. Using scripture that is historically accurate but making that history fit your goals is fruadulent. [QUOTE]What I was implying with that statement was that I made no claims on what happens to those who are innocent and those who have never heard of Christianity, I only made claims on those that actively turned their back on God. I can't say for sure what happens to anyone who has not actively made a choice when they are put under divine judgement.[/QUOTE] More holes in scripture. [QUOTE]I would admit that just because I know how an explosion works does not disprove in any way that God conducted the explosion. I'd instead turn to scripture to try and show why it's unlikely that God would do such a thing.[/QUOTE] This makes less than no sense to me. It's just a view that goes against so many basic critical thinking skills. [QUOTE]As much as you hate it when I mention it, this is your naturalistic interpretation of scientific evidence, not the scientific evidence. All that science has proven is that the brain is the main controller of the Central Nervous System, that it has several different components that serve different functions, that these functions work through a series of electrical impulses along axons that end at terminals that connect at synapses between brain cells that exchange neurochemicals to activate/deactivate certain parts of the brain at a time.[/QUOTE] So if the scientific evidence proves that you need such and such a balance and other such conditions going on for something to happen, that's not evidence of that, that's just evidence of it being present in the brain? Welp, I think you better go tell some neuroscientists they're wrong. [QUOTE]Those are the facts, now the naturalistic interpretation of these facts is that this is all there is to a person's mind as the naturalistic perspective assumes that there is nothing beyond the natural world.[/QUOTE] It doubts it's presence without a show of it. You call this illogical. [QUOTE]I'm not refuting any scientific facts, just the naturalistic perspective, I have absolutely no issue with us understanding how to better the health of our bodies and understand their intricate workings.[/QUOTE] But you disagree that that knowledge can be true if it counters your point. It's not an argument or an assumption that our brains thought processes run off chemical processes. That's a fact. You say it's not so when it's convenient. Just like you say parts of the bible are so when they are convenient. Apply some critical thinking.
if god already knows what happens then maybe all this has to happen so it turns out alright in the end
[QUOTE=1legmidget;42111722]Text(just don't want to stretch the page more than I have to)[/QUOTE] The analogy your using isn't accurate because it's still assuming predetermination, knowing that we will make a certain choice is very different from determining that we will make a choice. Knowledge of that choice is passive, non-interfering with how it comes about, where-as determining that choice would require one to actively decide for whoever makes the choice(kind of like how observing certain subatomic particles causes them to change states). Also your film reel vs flowchart analogy sort of breaks down when choices start being made. Sure when you have not selected any of the options in a flow chart there are several paths to take, but once you start making choices you start setting a path. So essentially, once you start making choices, the flow chart begins to turn into a film reel from your perspective. An omniscient being just sees ahead. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42113057]God gives you a or b. I call this limited will. You call this free will because you're excersing some form of chjoice. But to get to a or b, you went through a or b before that and had the same problem. you didn't make the choices you got to get there, you just went to the left or the right, which at the end of the day isn't much choice or free will at all. Certainly not deserving of the definition of "free will".[/QUOTE] Wait a second, we started with A or B, then you're equating them to spacial left and right and now you're assuming that the choice is somehow arbitrary. So essentially, you're basing your argument off of this very specific premise(even though there's a lot more behind even what we see as the most arbitrary actions). This does not apply to pretty much any real situation and therefore doesn't really say anything against free will. [QUOTE]If you see all time at all times there is no past or present or future. It's constant and finished all at once. It's completed the story arc at the same time it's never began. Knowing how everything is and ever could be defeats the very idea of choice, what could be a choice when it's a script?[/QUOTE] It's not a script though, because an omniscient entity doesn't necessarily determine our choices, it just knows them as they are truth. There are other options we could have chosen, but because we did not, they are not truth and are not known as choices made by us to the omniscient entity. [QUOTE]Are you claiming the origins of judaism are divine and not like any other religion on earth in that they have factual proof?[/QUOTE] Well of course, ultimately I believe Judaism to have its origin in the divine as it is the belief system that Christianity grew off of. That's not to say that Christianity [i]is[/i] Judaism(which it is very different from), but the two are connected for sure. [QUOTE]No i'm not claiming that but I am saying that we know how religions absorb, create, and spread. It's a studied aspect of them. We can pick out many traditions that are not unique to judaism that are from other cultures at the time in similar regions, or do you seriously think all cultures but yours rely on this function?[/QUOTE] I think you'd be hard pressed to find any actual religious practices that ancient Judaism adopted from surrounding regions, it's pretty much completely different. Sure there are some similar stories among them, but that doesn't imply that Judaism adopted those stories from other religions at all. [QUOTE]You're using scripture to define how it's right, if it's right, it's proof of god. Using scripture that is historically accurate but making that history fit your goals is fruadulent.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss]Scripture is "true" because of faith.[/QUOTE] This is what I was responding to, I'm showing you that scripture is not just true because of faith. [QUOTE]More holes in scripture.[/QUOTE] The fact that how a certain group of people will be judged by God is not accounted means that it's a hole in scripture's reasoning? How is this? [QUOTE]This makes less than no sense to me. It's just a view that goes against so many basic critical thinking skills.[/QUOTE] Well someone who claims God caused an explosion to occur 1000 years ago would have to say firstly how they determined that, then they'd have to support that claim scripturally. [QUOTE]So if the scientific evidence proves that you need such and such a balance and other such conditions going on for something to happen, that's not evidence of that...[/QUOTE] Yes it is, I never said it wasn't, the facts are just proof that those systems exist. It's a huge step in logic to go from stating how the brain works and then claiming that the human mind is only a natural deterministic process. [QUOTE]It doubts it's presence without a show of it. You call this illogical. [/QUOTE] Of course it is naturalism is not proven by observing natural processes, it's a circular argument to claim that there is nothing but natural processes by using natural evidence as your proof. It's a belief just like any other. [QUOTE]But you disagree that that knowledge can be true if it counters your point. It's not an argument or an assumption that our brains thought processes run off chemical processes. That's a fact.You say it's not so when it's convenient. [/QUOTE] You're right it's not just a belief that our brains run off of chemical processes, it's pretty close to fact actually. Now, the claim that the whole mind of a person is only rooted in natural processes, that is a belief. [QUOTE]Just like you say parts of the bible are so when they are convenient.[/QUOTE] You've made this claim several times, but every time you've presented proof for it you've just been misinterpreting what I'm saying.
-snip, read the thread at last-
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42115533]The analogy your using isn't accurate because it's still assuming predetermination, knowing that we will make a certain choice is very different from determining that we will make a choice. Knowledge of that choice is passive, non-interfering with how it comes about, where-as determining that choice would require one to actively decide for whoever makes the choice(kind of like how observing certain subatomic particles causes them to change states).[/QUOTE] Show how always knowing what the future is does not determine what the future is. You can't use the analogies you did before because you were equating determined events with undetermined events. By your own analogies you've essentially admitted that knowing what the future is before it has happened moves it from an undetermined state to a determined state. Right now you're trying to play a game of semantics with the word determine without providing and using a consistent definition of the word yourself. Right here and now in this context I'm guessing you're trying to use the definition of the word that involves cause or control when its pretty obvious I've been using it in a manner similar to ascertain or establish in the instances you are attempting to dispute. If the future has already been established because god divined it, then god's observation has determined that future. God's observation has caused and forced that future to happen simply because god has observed it to happen, and god can't be wrong about god's observations since god knows all knowable truths. God has decided the outcome of the future. You can't deviate from that path or choose a new path because god has already seen whatever you'll do in response. In that situation there are no choices to be made. You are running on a script that has already been established for you. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42115533] Also your film reel vs flowchart analogy sort of breaks down when choices start being made. Sure when you have not selected any of the options in a flow chart there are several paths to take, but once you start making choices you start setting a path. So essentially, once you start making choices, the flow chart begins to turn into a film reel from your perspective. An omniscient being just sees ahead. [/QUOTE] There are no choices because you can't choose anything other than the exact path god knows to be true. The other options aren't real in that situation. You are falling down a chasm with no control over the speed or direction of your fall. You can see what you think are other caves as you fall down, but you can't reach them or figure out if they are actually just shadows. You can only go down and you can't branch out. There is no freedom there. There are no choices there. You are governed by rules you have no control over. The path of your fall is already set. Where it goes, when it ends, and what happens to you when you hit the bottom is all already known. The other "options" have a zero percent probability of occurring. You don't have a choice of A or B. You have A, and the illusion of choice B because choice B isn't part of the truth god knows. You don't get to choose between A or B, or even A or the illusion of B. You just have A. B isn't an option. You can't even think about something other than A because thinking about things ends up being part of A. If god knows everything all the time with 100% certainty then there are only the things that god knows. There is no deviation. There are no options. There can't be. The things god knows constitutes all that there is. Saying you have free will in this situation is like saying you chose what color candy you took from a bowl of identical red candies. It doesn't matter what you pick in that situation. Everything is the same. There's only one option.
What this page reminds me of [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZdssVmgDJM[/media] And she dies anyway yet he saves humanity despite choosing the other door
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.