Is there a God?

[gorbee natcase]

     "(Jews can't play basketball)"


               By           Eric cartmen,               The greatet fat ass in the world

[pianowelsh]

YES there is a God! - And his desire for you to know him and his son Jesus

[ahinton]

YES there is a God! - And his desire for you to know him and his son Jesus

Mon Dieu! (sorry if anyone think's that's in any way blasphemous). The 351st response here actually gives a simple "Yes" answer. All we need now is an equally simple "No" one, I suppose. I wonder what it may say about those who have contributed to this thread and those who have refrained from so doing that a simple question with only three possible answers (yes, no and don't know) has attracted so very many responses - and yet the initiator of this thread, who elsewhere on this forum expressed some time ago what appeared to be a keen interest in the contents (aural and visual!) of Fredrik Ullén's then forthcoming CD of the first 25 of Sorabji's 100 Transcendental Studies has yet to provide any comment thereon!

Ah, well...

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

Question: Is there a God? Yes.  46 (52.9%)
No.  27 (31%)
Mu.  14 (16.1%)
 
 hahaha, these results are disturbing

[ahinton]

Question: Is there a God? Yes.  46 (52.9%)
No.  27 (31%)
Mu.  14 (16.1%)
 
 hahaha, these results are disturbing

Yes - especially to the extent that, as I implied earlier, it has taken more than 350 responses to generate those 87 answers that you identify above - which shows, if little else, that the actual answers elicited represent less than 25% of the responses as a whole...

Go figure (or find something better to do - which latter should, I imagine, be rather easier...).

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

i voted for Mu.

[pianowelsh]

Who is MU dont know him??! dont think He can be as good as Jesus anyway.
eric cartman was a prat.  God is not mocked.  Dont make the same mistake he did.

[pianowelsh]

Of those of you who say there is a God how many of you would actually say that you have a relationship with him? and what is your experience of God?

[semme]

as far as i know, there are experiences with god in the previous pages.

[tac-tics]

The question of God is the Incompleteness Theorem of religion. The closer you get to proving his existence, the more you realise there's no real point to doing so.

Personally, I think people get too hung up on the impact their God has on their lives. They don't give credit where credit is due -- to themselves and others... to people and the world we live in. Anyone who studies any sort of mathematics, science, or art knows that the world is beautiful enough detached from higher powers.

無～

[bon_bear]

  another religious topic.

I'm not an expert but I do truely believe that he exists.

Just so if any of us are interested, this webby is extremely useful for all of your questions.
https://www.allaboutgod.com/

Elizabear~

Christians believe that the Holy Spirit gave every Christian spirtual gifts (1 Corinithians 12:4-6) and we should use it to build His church.

and lastly, NEVER EVER question the Lord.   

[pantonality]

Of those of you who say there is a God how many of you would actually say that you have a relationship with him? and what is your experience of God?

I have a wonderful relationship with God and many experiences of the father/mother/creator. My experience of God has allowed me to see that almost every religion has distorted God's essential message with caveats and excuses that serve human purposes. For example almost every major religion says something to the effect that if you don't believe or do this or that you will go to hell. This allows believers in every religion to look down on unbelievers and perhaps do violence to them (if they won't convert). FWIW, I believe God's essential message is "Love your neighbor" without any caveats or excuses wholly and unconditionally.

and lastly, NEVER EVER question the Lord.   

Well this is all well and good except it's hard to determine when God is talking and when man is talking. The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. The Koran is similarly riddled. The various translations of the Bible differ significantly. So which one do I believe? Most ardent Bible believers may seek guidance from clergy, but they arent the Lord, they're just people with more education (i.e. also imperfect, but better at it). I believe humanity would be better served if those with questions would simply ask themselves, "What does love your neighbor mean in this situation?"

[tac-tics]

A random thought I had the other day:

Atheists believe in 0 gods.

Monotheists believe in 1 god.

Polytheists believe in many gods.

But how do we know gods come in discrete quantities?

I can have a cup of water or a bottle of water, but I can't have one water or two waters. It doesn't work that way. Maybe God is the same?

Something to think about.

[bon_bear]

I believe humanity would be better served if those with questions would simply ask themselves, "What does love your neighbor mean in this situation?"

   Good point!! Good point

Elizabear~

[prometheus]

Most would agree with that point.

The problem is that it doesn't get applied. It seems to be possible to think that you are applying your wise words of wisdom while actually doing the total opposite.

[pantonality]

Most would agree with that point.

The problem is that it doesn't get applied. It seems to be possible to think that you are applying your wise words of wisdom while actually doing the total opposite.

I certainly understand what you're saying. When I veered from traditional Christianity I had many prayers for my eternal soul. It seems that  many consider prosletyzing a loving calling and in their view of the world it is. If you really think about it fear is the opposite of love. Fear closes hearts, fear pushes away. Love opens hearts and draws others closer. So if the motivation behind an action or thought is fear then love isn't in the picture. So when the devout pray for my eternal soul because they're afraid for me I like to take their good wishes and discount the fear. That way if there is such a thing as spiritual energy I'm accepting only the best of it.

For those who would say that the Bible says we should fear God I heard this from a seminary student. The Aramaic word for fear is the same as the word for revere. Thus in the original language of the Old Testament it's quite possible that the intention was to tell us that we should revere God, that's significantly different than we should fear God.

Cheers,

Steve

[ahinton]

A random thought I had the other day:

Atheists believe in 0 gods.

Monotheists believe in 1 god.

Polytheists believe in many gods.

But how do we know gods come in discrete quantities?

I can have a cup of water or a bottle of water, but I can't have one water or two waters. It doesn't work that way. Maybe God is the same?

Something to think about.

If you go down to the supermarket near where I live, you can have at least thirty different waters costing from around £0.20 per litre to more than ten times that much; whilst the precise relevance (if any) of this fact to the number of gods in which anyone may believe at any given moment eludes me, I may nevertheless bear it in mind so as not to expect a free god with every so many litres of water that I buy...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Talking about God can get you very confused because there are infinite paths towards him. Even those who deny him, it still is a path towards God. Those that deny God must make sure that before they die they are still 100% sure there is no God. If they die with that then they should be fine, but if you don't look into it then you are simply falling into a trap.

Human's are lazy, they don't like to add new things to their life, those who have chosen to be be without GOD prefer it to stay that way because of our lazy human nature! But search, the more you search the more accurate you can make your decisions, there is no way to say THERE IS A GOD or THERE ISN'T. You must INVESTIGATE it yourself. YOURSELF, not listen to other people. YOURSELF!

For those who believe in human supremecy and perfection, they will say there is NO God. For those who are humbled by human error we will say there is a GOD.

[leahcim]

there is no way to say THERE IS A GOD or THERE ISN'T. You must INVESTIGATE it yourself. YOURSELF, not listen to other people. YOURSELF!

There are over 200 European languages in each of which the phrase "There isn't a God" can be said and that's just scratching the surface.

What would be the point of investigating something or INVESTIGATING it if the initial premise you made were at all true?

How are you going to embark on an investigation of nearly any kind that doesn't involve listening via some medium or other to someone else? Not the least something that is the invention of human beings. Dr Dolittle [another lazy bugger by the sounds of it] didn't get any more information from a giraffe or anything like that. These are rhetorical questions of course, since anything you'd say in reply is, according to you, not to be listened to. [Which for that specific human I think your advice is spot on, but it doesn't generalise]

For those who believe in human supremecy and perfection, they will say there is NO God. For those who are humbled by human error we will say there is a GOD.

Clearly people who believe in God do so for a number of different reasons. Ask them. Ah, nope you can't do that...I guess you'll have to stick to making crap up.

Equally, although you might not have done the investigation yet, being the lazy, good for nothing human that you describe yourself as, I'm sure when you do you'll discover that many people who don't believe in God are far from the belief that human beings are  supreme or perfect. [You could just ask a few but you probably wouldn't see the sense in that]

[tac-tics]

Talking about God can get you very confused because there are infinite paths towards him.

Is that countably or uncountably infinite?

For those who believe in human supremecy and perfection, they will say there is NO God.
For those who are humbled by human error we will say there is a GOD.

Christians believe that human beings are of the same form as some superior all-powerful being. Now if that isn't a self-inflated view of human worth, what is?

[tac-tics]

There are over 200 European languages in each of which the phrase "There isn't a God" can be said and that's just scratching the surface.

Just out of curiosity. Why did you limit your search to "European" languages? I know other languages like Japanese's 神 (kami) don't have the same connotations, but it's still worth something =-P

[prometheus]

Probably because the word god in far eastern languages doesn't mean the same thing as our word god does.

He did 'forget' the near eastern laguanges.

'Deva' is another word for god. If you figure out its usage it has nothing to do with god was we know it.

I just had to laugh reading idlewonder's post, I am sorry.

[Barbosa-piano]

 Yes, God exists. I talked to him this morning. 
 He is sad because his own children question his existence...

 I Mean, I can't believe that musicians ask that question... We must remember that music translates with great precision the feelings that approximate us to God.

I respect others' opinions, but I am a believer- A very happy one. 

God bless.

[Jacey1973]

Is there a God? Yes!

Now lets stop worrying about the after life and get on with this one first!

[tac-tics]

Yes, God exists. I talked to him this morning. 
 He is sad because his own children question his existence...

So Jesus WASN'T God's only son.... hmmm

 

[musik_man]

I was thinking a while back and went down this little train of thought.  If we live in a truly materialistic universe, and I mean completely, no God, no Spirits, no 'life force', nothing but the laws of nature, we are reduced to a set of atoms with highly complex and regulated actions.  This of course would mean that there is no free will, and not merely in the sense of having no control over your destiny.  Your whole life is not decided on the choices you make, but on how trillions of atoms interact as governed by the laws of nature.  The fact that I made this post, has nothing to do with expressing myself.  My body as determined by genetics and environment, received the input of this thread.  My brain took in this information and spit out this post.  This same process occured for all other posts in this or any other thread.  In fact, everything that has happened in history occured by this method.

This would suggest that this debate is pointless.  If the laws of nature make me believe in Jesus and they make you believe there is no God, how could we change them?  Actually, how could stop ourselves from attempting to change these beliefs?  We have no control over anything, but even worse we wouldn't be able to do anything different now that we know of our lack of control.  It seems to me that atheism is really nihilism.  Life becomes truly meaningless.  If we had a sufficiently powerful computer, we could press play and let it live out the future of humanity(and for that matter the universe) and be exactly correct.

So I have a question for any Atheists.  Assuming you don't find a logical flaw in my arguement, do you believe this?  Do you live life in this manner, denying any control over even the slightest aspect of reality as an illusion?  Would it matter?  Because if this were true, you would be unable to act on it.

Rationality requires free will to exist.  Free will requires God.  Seeing as how anyone in this thread believes both of these(Rationality, in that they think debate is possible and an objective truth exists, and free will, in that they make the choice to believe in what they do and they think that others can be persuaded to change their beliefs), can the idea of pure materialism be construed as anything other than cognitive dissonance?

[ted]

Perhaps free will is a property of consciousness. The more highly developed the consciousness, the more awareness of free will which is present. If so, then it leads us to the rather interesting proposition that all matter has consciousness and free will, and that the difference between the free will of my computer, a virus, a spider and a human being is a continuum of degree rather than type. I think there is a recent dissertation by John Conway to this effect but I have not found a copy to read yet. Many writers have suggested the idea, J.B. Priestley among them.

I think the non-existence of a universal Turing machine which can model the universe can be established by the old self-reference trick; something to do with it having to model itself and an infinite regress, but it's ages since I've read it. I cannot see any connection at all between the property we refer to as free will and the existence or otherwise of a deity.

[6ft 4]

Evolution at its finest: https://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2204.html

The idea of God "testing us" is comedy: https://www.thatvideosite.com/view/1120.html

[prometheus]

...nothing but the laws of nature, we are reduced to a set of atoms with highly complex and regulated actions.  This of course would mean that there is no free will, and not merely in the sense of having no control over your destiny.  Your whole life is not decided on the choices you make, but on how trillions of atoms interact as governed by the laws of nature.

No. The behavoir of subatomic particles is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. These laws only deal with chances. It is not the cause that dictates the result, is is a set of 'dice' that do. Of course which 'dice' are 'rolled' depends on the cause. This means not  even god, or nature herself, however you want to put it, knows what a particle will do. It will only know the chances. Now it is very important to understand that experiments up tilll now have proven there are no hidden variables and that nature itself really doesn't know anything at all about the outcome of the chance. Only the moment something happens nature, and we, how 'the dice landed'. From this comes the famous Einstein quote: "God does not play dice." on which Bohr replied: "Who are you to tell God what to do?"

Now scientists really hate it that nature is this way. But it is a scientists job to ignore this. They aren't there to put judgement on nature, obviously. Their job is to accept nature as she is. This is very hard to do. Einstein could not do it. And he was never able to accept this property of nature. This is one of Einstein's blunders. He actually admitted that the other was 'his greatest mistake'.

All this is because of the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle." The idea that the universe is one big complex mechanical clock with only one starting condition and thus only one outcome is wrong. The starting conditions are uncertain. They cannot be pinned down. The exact location of the walls around you are uncertain. The same goes for the properties of the particles making up your brain. This means that when we play out reality several times we will have, or rather could in theory have, different outcomes, eventhough the situation in all realities are the same.

The fact that I made this post, has nothing to do with expressing myself.  My body as determined by genetics and environment, received the input of this thread.

Yes, this is true. Your brain is a 'computer' and the outcome is dictated largely by what goes in; genetics and the experienes in your childhood. But this isn't the same as determinism. What is going to happen is not cut in stone. It is only true that how you will react to what happens to you is dominated by your genetics and your childhood experiences, things you have no control or choice over. I do suggest that 'free will' is very minor and largely an illusion because we naturally have the idea we can choose what to do freely.

This would suggest that this debate is pointless.  If the laws of nature make me believe in Jesus and they make you believe there is no God, how could we change them?

First of, do the laws of nature really make you believe in Jesus? As for myself I do not believe there is no God because of the laws of nature. I do not believe in god because the laws of nature one would expect to see if there was a god are missing. There is nothing that proves to me god doesn't exist. It is just that I think that if god existed that there should be proof. And that I think that when there is no proof one can't know anything.

As for changing the laws of nature. Either god exists and he is the only one that can do this, something he has never done as far as we can tell. Or god doesn't exist and the laws of nature cannot change. Unless there is a law which changes the other laws, which doesn't seem to exist because our observations indicate the laws of nature have been the same throughout time.


 Actually, how could stop ourselves from attempting to change these beliefs?  We have no control over anything, but even worse we wouldn't be able to do anything different now that we know of our lack of control.

It seems to me that atheism is really nihilism. Life becomes truly meaningless.

Are humans to make out if live has meaning or not? I mean, on the universal scale? Yes, as far as I know nothing that we do will make a difference on a large scale. All things we do are extremely important to ourselves and very important to those around us. They can be really important for all other humans or our planet. So there is plenty of room to give your life meaning. There just isn't a universal 'goal of life' in the atheistic way of thinking. Which is actually preferable. I mean, let's take christianity. Life on earth is only a test. We have to prove that we belong in the kingdom of god. The moment we have done this life becomes purposeless. Our goal has been accomplished. What else to do?

Really, I do not beleive any christian limits herself to the purpose of life dictated by the bible. They also give their own lives meaning. If you take away the god dictated purpose then they will still have plenty to live for. They will not be nihilists.

If we had a sufficiently powerful computer, we could press play and let it live out the future of humanity(and for that matter the universe) and be exactly correct.

In a sense the universe is a powerful computer simulation. But in the case of god it may be the same. God is doing some experiment. In both cases the outcome is unsure.

So I have a question for any Atheists.  Assuming you don't find a logical flaw in my arguement, do you believe this?  Do you live life in this manner, denying any control over even the slightest aspect of reality as an illusion?  Would it matter?  Because if this were true, you would be unable to act on it.

So no, the universe isn't deterministic.

Rationality requires free will to exist.

I don't believe this. Computers can reason, if we program them correctly. They do not have free will.

Free will requires God.

I do not believe this either.

Plus free will is a very puzzling concept to me. I mean, you just can't do what you want. People are not born as a clean slate. If my will is free enough to want to magically fly through the air, I just can't do it. Maybe only god has a free will. But he created humans in his image. So his own nature forced him to create humans in his image. Isn't that a flaw in free will? If god really had free will he would have be free to create humans any way he wanted.

So I don't really understand what makes you think this.

Seeing as how anyone in this thread believes both of these.

Actually I do not think humans have 'free will' in a pure sense. I am not sure which definition you use. As for rationality. Humans have the capability to be rational. But most of the time they are not. It is impossible to be rational the whole time. As for your definition. I do believe debate is possible but more important, I believe debate is useful, constructive and that people can be reasoned with. But it is also true that some people can be impeccable to reason. No offence but I think Pianistimo is one of these people. One could reason with her about music but not about religion.

As for objective truth. I do not believe this. I believe there is one truth, one reality. But it will be impossible to connect with this is namy cases. I mean, if there is no one writing down what really happens, for example like a galactic library as I once saw in the Silver Surfer animation series, an archive of universal truth where one can check if something matches the universal truth, then universal truth will be lost. There is no way to ever know what was before the big bang. But I do believe there can only be one answer to that question.

This means I mean that I think that humans can never have access to universal truth, they can never claim to possess universal truth.

The only way to do this would be through god. Actually, the idea that god gives their followers universal truth is one of the reasons why you will see me 'lash out' against monotheists. The idea that you have universal truth and universal morality on your side can be very dangerous.

...can the idea of pure materialism be construed as anything other than cognitive dissonance?

Cognitive dissonance? I don't really understand what you mean with your concluding questions since I don't agree with some of your definitions but let me say this.

I believe that humans naturually give their own life meaning. I mean, it is not hard to see that monotheists do all kinds of things that god never told them to do. The bible doesn't tell you to play piano. (though I am not sure but I think it does say some things about music) The bible doesn't tell you you should spend your life watching football, american football, basketball or something else. Yet many people do this nonetheless. They do it because they have decided they should do these things. So people do not need god, or something else, to give meaning to their life.

And then the universe. As an atheist it is extremely puzzeling, in an extremely profound way, something not possible to express in words, why the whole universe even exists. I mean, there could be nothing. No space, no time, no matter. For some strange reason all this accidentally came into existance. Why? Why would there have to be any law? Anything at all.
And this is also very strange. I do not undertand why there isn't nothing. But at the same time I do not understand what 'nothing' is.

Also puzzling, though much much much less so, is why there is only very tiny spot with us humans on it, and nothing that compares to us has been observed yet.

My astronomy teacher once said that we exist to observe the universe, appriciate its beauty. If we didn't exist the universe lost its reason to exist. No one would have ever become aware of its existance. I mean, if no one can observe it then why does it need to exist? So we have justified the creation of the universe

It seems that most people need to have these questions 'eliminated' (I will not call it 'answered') and this is done by theology. I do not. I do not see the need for not having these questions and I do not feel that god is a satisfying answer at all. Even if it were proven that god existed I would still have the same question.

I do not see a reason to put theology in the picture at all. The 'why' in the question is much more deeper than the usual 'why'. I do not mean it in a sense that I think the universe should have a reason to exist. It goes beyond that in a way I cannot really put into words.

[timothy42b]

In the absence of God, free will does not necessarily disappear.  

The illusion of free will can appear of course with or without deity.  And clearly we have the illusion of free will, I think most would agree on that.

Random processes still exist, and with sufficiently complex processes it may not be possible to determine a result, even though the result is controlled.  For example, pinball.  Oh, you kids have never seen one.  It's an old mechanical video game, where a marble is shot onto a game board and bounces all over the place.  See the rock opera Tommy.   Predictable?  well, not really, and yet every single bounce is totally controlled by Newtonian mechanics.

But if there is a God, then the answer depends on the definition of God.  If He is omniscient, free will CANNOT exist.  God couldn't know what we are going to do in the future if the future was not in some way fixed.  If we have free will, God is not omnisicient;  if God is omniscient, we do not have free will.  

[pianistimo]

on the other hand, if God also made the angels with free will (taking into account that Satan took 1/3 of the angels at the time he decided to part with God) - then certainly there was free will from the beginning of the divine creation (even of spiritual creations).  otherwise, the thought wouldn't have entered their minds.

if our salvation was sure - Christ wouldn't have needed to die.  But, the fact that He died for us shows that he knew we would sin.  sinning isn't a predestined thing - but a temptation that we succumb to when we allow our thoughts to become action.  Cain had this problem and God told him BEFORE he killed Abel that his 'countenance had fallen.'  'If you do well...'  He told him - he would receive blessings and approval from God which he thought he wasn't getting fairly. 

we are so small of a creation - but so large to God.  without God we are nothing, but with Him we are everything.

[donjuan]

Evolution at its finest: https://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2204.html

ahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa.....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
thanks man you made my day

[musik_man]

Prometheus, I'm aware of Quantum Mechanics.  My first post doesn't really mention them, but it's not particularly relevant to my arguements.

A computer is not rational.  I'm assuming you know how digital circuits work.  A set of voltage inputs(either 1 or 0) pass through a series of gates and give an output.  No rationality is involved at any point.  It doesn't matter how many gates there are.

One could argue that a brain is of a similar construction.  It doesn't matter how many billions of cells there are.  Information is plugged in, and an output is received.  At what point in this situation is any choice made?  How in fact can a 'choice' be made?  You'd first have to explain what consciousness is and why it allows you to alter the outcome of the physical reactions in your brain. 

When I say that the laws of nature make me believe in Jesus I mean this.  Based off of my genetic structure, inherited from my parents, in combination with my environment and experiences, my brain has a 1 in the believe Jesus column.  This is not a 'choice' of mine.  I make no choices.  I take lots of inputs and spit out lots of outputs.

Really, I do not beleive any christian limits herself to the purpose of life dictated by the bible. They also give their own lives meaning. If you take away the god dictated purpose then they will still have plenty to live for. They will not be nihilists.

The nihilism implied by atheism is much deeper than this.  It is not a meaninglessness of existence.  It is a lack of existence.  In a purely materialistic world, consciousness is unexplainable.  The whole concept of thought of free will implies the ability to choose between two states.  Now tell me, without God, how can a choice be made?  How can my consciousness change what output my brain gives from the same input?  Through what mechanism?  I can't think of any possible mechanisms that could do this.  And unless you can, I can only assume that materialism denies free will.

Richard Dawkins thinks of religion as a disease of an idea.  It infects people.  The input of the idea is suited to the brain as dictated by evolution and most humans will believe it because of that.  But why not extend that logic to all ideas.  Whether or not we believe anything, is dictated on how well it interacts with our brain structure.  This would hold not only for big ideas like our worldviews and religion, but also for horrible mundane items.  Your favorite color, your fashion sense, your taste in music are all dictated by your brain structure.  Where's the free will in this?

Plus free will is a very puzzling concept to me. I mean, you just can't do what you want. People are not born as a clean slate. If my will is free enough to want to magically fly through the air, I just can't do it. Maybe only god has a free will. But he created humans in his image. So his own nature forced him to create humans in his image. Isn't that a flaw in free will? If god really had free will he would have be free to create humans any way he wanted.

Free will doesn't require that you can choose anything.  It only means that you have at least one choice.  If in your whole life you only had one choice, whether to wear a green shirt or a red shirt to class on Monday, April 24, 2006, you would still have free will.  Materialism would deny you even such minor decisions as that though.  If free will doesn't require God, how is a choice made?  Actually, what makes the choice?  A 'human' is nothing more than a horribly complex machine.  How can a machine choose?  My computer doesn't choose to do anything.  It receives inputs through my mouse and keyboard and displays the results on my monitor.  What makes us different?

Cognitive dissonance generally refers to someone who holds contradicting ideas yet does not reconcile them.  In this case, making the choice to believe in a system that denies free will, would contradict itself and be an example of cognitive dissonance.


Timothy, randomness does not give free will.  Choice gives free will.  Outside of some very contrived scenarios, it is impossible to predict how a set of fluids will flow.  If you took a cup of water and dropped it twice, the fluid would obey two different paths.  Does the fluid have free will?  In order for that to happen, the fluid would have had to choose to react differently.  The same thing applies to your brain.  The output of the brain not being set in stone, has no bearing on free will.  Our ability to choose what the brain's output will be is the essence of free will.  What physical mechanism would allow us to choose anything?  Wouldn't the glass of water have the same mechanism?  How can we have more free will than a glass of water?

How does God's omniscience negate free will.  If we make a choice, it makes no difference that he already knew what choice we would make.  Remember that God is not constrained by time.

[tac-tics]

This of course would mean that there is no free will, and not merely in the sense of having no control over your destiny.

Musik_man, I admire your way of thinking. I have thought extensively about the idea of free will in much the same way.

This would suggest that this debate is pointless.

This is probably true =-)
The ability for any one party on this forum to convince the rest is probably nil. However, that is not the actual point of this thread. This thread continues to stay at the top of the forum because it is a topic which interests the members of the community. The point of this debate is that interest itself.

Life becomes truly meaningless.

Life has whatever meaning you appoint it. You can choose to sit back and wait to die, or you can live life to enjoy it. Surround yourself with people and things you love, because although your love will disappear after your death, you will be one happy little meme in the world until then.

If we had a sufficiently powerful computer, we could press play and let it live out the future of humanity(and for that matter the universe) and be exactly correct.

How odd that someone else has thought of this. I remember wondering about this question when I was younger. My conclusion was that such a computer could never possibly provide a totally accurate view of the world, because the computer is part of the world as well. It must somehow account for itself.

And even if it could account for everything in the universe except for itself, then it must be isolated from everything it accounted for. If the machine ever came in contact with what it was predicting, it would interfere with its results.

This isn't a rigorous argument, but think about it for yourself.

So I have a question for any Atheists.  Assuming you don't find a logical flaw in my arguement, do you believe this?  Do you live life in this manner, denying any control over even the slightest aspect of reality as an illusion?  Would it matter?  Because if this were true, you would be unable to act on it.

Onto free will. In my view at least, it both exists and doesn't exist. Humans and animals make decisions in the same way rocks and trees do. Our brains work out problems symbolicly through a very complex chemical process based on our sensual input. Every decision is determined through the physical laws.

However, free will does exist. It is an idea created by humans. It is a meme, as opposed to a law of nature. When a human believes in (or is even aware of the idea of) free will, that belief factors into the eventual decision made for any given choice.
                               

Rationality requires free will to exist.  Free will requires God.

Free will does not require a god in the sense of Christianity or any major world religion. For free will to exist -- that is, that nonnatural forces have influence over decisions of humans -- you need only nonnatural forces to exist. You do not need a diet who speaks the language of man or holds similar form or will.

So no, the universe isn't deterministic.

prometheus, I know the current idea in modern science is that quantum physics doesn't obey the same determinism that classical physics does. I have gone through a fair amount of physics, and I know the basics to many of the modern theories. However, the idea of "nondeterminism" is personally hard for me to swallow. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but rather, I'm expressing my ideas on the subject, so please don't take offense =-)

I understand it is impossible to determine some things from within the system. I know that given a particle moving from point A to point B, there will never be 100% certainty which path it took to get there. But just because you can't determine a system's determinism from within the system doesn't mean it isn't deterministic. (hah. that's a fun sentence).

Quantum decisions seem random to us. But that doesn't prove there isn't some method behind it. It could easily be the case the algorithm is comlicated to the point it cannot be codified within the universe. Science is based on human ability to recognize patterns. Failing to find a pattern does not prove a pattern does not exist.

[tac-tics]

Richard Dawkins thinks of religion as a disease of an idea.  It infects people.  The input of the idea is suited to the brain as dictated by evolution and most humans will believe it because of that.  But why not extend that logic to all ideas. 

Yes. These are called "memes." Memes are not necessarily bad. All human skills are memes. In my own view, any self-replicating pattern in the world is a meme.

Memes are sometimes compared to viruses because many memes spread very quickly. However, this is an unnecessary, pessimistic use of the word which turns off many people to the theory. The entimology of the word "meme" comes from "mind" and "gene". It is a mental trait which has reproductive abilities. Nothing more.

A 'human' is nothing more than a horribly complex machine.  How can a machine choose?  My computer doesn't choose to do anything.  It receives inputs through my mouse and keyboard and displays the results on my monitor.  What makes us different?

You receive input through your senses of touch, taste, sight, hearing, and smell --- AS WELL AS feedback from your own mind. Imagine you woke up the next morning in a black box with no external input was able to influence you. You could still make decisions. Your decisions would be entirely based on the feedback from your own thoughts. Despite all the free will in the world, my guess is your first thought would be something along the lines of "why am I in this box?" perhaps followed up by feelings of fear and questions about whether or not you would die in the box. From there, it becomes more free form, as your unique mind looks for solutions to how to escape the box.

Another example is this. Given two brothers who are both raised in the same household who both go to chruch. One of them might grow up to become a priest and the other grows up to be a businessman (the bipolar opposite of course ). How would this ever be possible? Even if both brothers go to church, their input is not necessarily the same. Nay. Their inputs will be very similar, but they are not the same. Thus, the outputs should be similar (ie: this is not the typical case... family members usually share similar religion), but the outputs are not necessarily the same (I am hardcore nonreligious while my brother and mother are somewhat spiritual).

Cognitive dissonance generally refers to someone who holds contradicting ideas yet does not reconcile them.  In this case, making the choice to believe in a system that denies free will, would contradict itself and be an example of cognitive dissonance.

I deny free will. I do not make decisions. Decisions are made of me. Who makes them? The world as a whole. I am part of the choice, because I base my beliefs on the beliefs and actions of others. My sunday school teacher is part of the choice because she didn't arouse my interests in religion as a child. My mom is part of the choice because after my confirmation, she no longer forced me to go to church. Einstein is part of the choice -- despite the fact he was dead since before my time -- because of his writings (and the interpretations of his writings by others) on the nature of the universe. I did not make the decision alone. The world as a whole made the decision for me. Every spec of dust in the universe had some influence on the decision. Yes... some people were more influential than others, but the point is that decisions are not made in a vacuum.

Remember that God is not constrained by time.

Now the big question is god constrained by logic -- the predicate calculus?

[prometheus]

Prometheus, I'm aware of Quantum Mechanics.  My first post doesn't really mention them, but it's not particularly relevant to my arguements.

It proves determinism can't exist.

A computer is not rational.  I'm assuming you know how digital circuits work.  A set of voltage inputs(either 1 or 0) pass through a series of gates and give an output.  No rationality is involved at any point.

Then what is rationality? The brain is nothing more than a calculator. A computer also is a calculator. given the methodology, or rather the software computers can derive a conclusion from certain premises. So a computer can reason.

One could argue that a brain is of a similar construction.  It doesn't matter how many billions of cells there are.  Information is plugged in, and an output is received.  At what point in this situation is any choice made?  How in fact can a 'choice' be made?  You'd first have to explain what consciousness is and why it allows you to alter the outcome of the physical reactions in your brain.

Making the calculation is making the choice. You are your brain.

You could say that you don't have a free will because your brain decides something in the subconscious. I don't believe in a conscious free will. The idea that we have this is an illusion. The brain makes it choices, through calculation, in the subconscious. Then the consciousness is informed.

When I say that the laws of nature make me believe in Jesus I mean this.  Based off of my genetic structure, inherited from my parents, in combination with my environment and experiences, my brain has a 1 in the believe Jesus column. This is not a 'choice' of mine. I make no choices. I take lots of inputs and spit out lots of outputs.

You mean your parents hard-wired you, either through genetic material or through education, that Jesus is the son of god?

The nihilism implied by atheism is much deeper than this.  It is not a meaninglessness of existence.  It is a lack of existence.

Lack of existence? Surely one exists without faith in god. Surely one exists without god.

In a purely materialistic world, consciousness is unexplainable.

How can you know something is unexplainable? Surely there are explainations about consciousness.

You seem to claim that consciousness can't exist without a soul. Many animals are conscious and according to christianity they do not have souls. So this doesn't compute.

Furtermore, there is no sign at all of a soul. If a soul influences my thoughts every moment so that I can be conscious then why can't the soul influence any measuring instrument?

The whole concept of thought of free will implies the ability to choose between two states. Now tell me, without God, how can a choice be made?

As far as I know there is no proof that god influences someones brain either directly or indirectly. But people do seem to make choices.

How can my consciousness change what output my brain gives from the same input? Through what mechanism?  I can't think of any possible mechanisms that could do this. And unless you can, I can only assume that materialism denies free will.

But people given the same input will give different output. Your brain decides by making a calculation and you are your brain. I do not believe in any other form of free will. I do not see how that would work. And I do not understand how god, or non-materialism, can make that possible.

Richard Dawkins thinks of religion as a disease of an idea.  It infects people.  The input of the idea is suited to the brain as dictated by evolution and most humans will believe it because of that.  But why not extend that logic to all ideas.  Whether or not we believe anything, is dictated on how well it interacts with our brain structure. This would hold not only for big ideas like our worldviews and religion, but also for horrible mundane items. Your favorite color, your fashion sense, your taste in music are all dictated by your brain structure. Where's the free will in this?

Your brain makes these choices. Not your consciousness of your consciousness. Limiting 'you' to the consciousness of your consciousness is not accurate. The way you put it I do not believe there is free will.

A 'human' is nothing more than a horribly complex machine.  How can a machine choose?  My computer doesn't choose to do anything.  It receives inputs through my mouse and keyboard and displays the results on my monitor.  What makes us different?

There are many differences between computers and between our brains. Most are not known to man and most of those that are known to man are not known to me. An important thing to know is that the human brain is a neural net and that the average computer is not.

To me your question of 'How can a machine/human choose?' is 'How does a machine/human choose?'.

Cognitive dissonance generally refers to someone who holds contradicting ideas yet does not reconcile them.  In this case, making the choice to believe in a system that denies free will, would contradict itself and be an example of cognitive dissonance.

I can't look in your brain but it seems you are the one with the congnitive dissonance.

Timothy, randomness does not give free will.  Choice gives free will.

Randomness does give the ability to choose.

How does God's omniscience negate free will.  If we make a choice, it makes no difference that he already knew what choice we would make.  Remember that God is not constrained by time.

Since quantum mechanics is involved in this, so is Heisenberg uncertaincy. In the case of god god made the world in such a way that he is throwing dice. He does not know what choise a human will make because he will literally have to throw the dice to find out. The fact that God created a world that is fundamentally uncertain he can't know anything about this.

prometheus, I know the current idea in modern science is that quantum physics doesn't obey the same determinism that classical physics does. I have gone through a fair amount of physics, and I know the basics to many of the modern theories. However, the idea of "nondeterminism" is personally hard for me to swallow. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but rather, I'm expressing my ideas on the subject, so please don't take offense =-)

Yes, this part of quantum mechanics seems very hard for humans to swallow. As I noted Einstein couldn't do it. Some other famous QM quotes:

    * "I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
          o Erwin Schrödinger

    * "For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it."
          o Niels Bohr

      * "If that turns out to be true, I'll quit physics."
          o Max von Laue

      * "Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!"
         o Max Born

I understand it is impossible to determine some things from within the system. I know that given a particle moving from point A to point B, there will never be 100% certainty which path it took to get there. But just because you can't determine a system's determinism from within the system doesn't mean it isn't deterministic. (hah. that's a fun sentence).

Its not just that our predictions are uncertain. It also means that a particle is literally a representation of several packages of chances. It is always something that is uncertain. And it is not that something cannot be measured more certain. It is at its core. An electron isn't a point of negative charge. It is a 'cloud' of chances appearing all over the place.

Quantum decisions seem random to us. But that doesn't prove there isn't some method behind it. It could easily be the case the algorithm is comlicated to the point it cannot be codified within the universe. Science is based on human ability to recognize patterns. Failing to find a pattern does not prove a pattern does not exist.

It is believed that there are no 'hidden variables'. Scientists think that there have been experiments that prove my statement above. That all subatomic particles are indefinite things, ambigious things, they are unclear. This is called the Copenhagen interpretation and there have been some very complex experiments, so I am told, that prove this interpretation is correct. It is not that our theory at the moment is uncertain. It is nature itself that is.

[tac-tics]

Yes, this part of quantum mechanics seems very hard for humans to swallow. As I noted Einstein couldn't do it. Some other famous QM quotes:

    * "I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
          o Erwin Schrödinger

The uncertainty principle speaks on behalf of measurability (or rather immeasurability) of the world. The limitation in science is that it can only speak (somewhat) accurately on things which are measurable. While many modern physicists believe that all truths can and will be discovered from within the universe, there is no scientific proof to this statement =-P It is an aesthetic idea of the universe. While  these kinds of ideas are not always bad, in this particular case, it forces physicists to believe the world is powered by some creepy variant of Dungeons and Dragons in God's basement.

[musik_man]

It proves determinism can't exist.

Then what is rationality? The brain is nothing more than a calculator. A computer also is a calculator. given the methodology, or rather the software computers can derive a conclusion from certain premises. So a computer can reason.

A computer cannot reason.  It is nothing more than a very complex electrical circuit.  Based on how it is designed, it will give certain responses to different inputs.  There is no reason in the circuit.  It is nothing more than a string of operations.

Making the calculation is making the choice. You are your brain.

How is a calculation making a choice.  Electricity flows through a circuit, and comes out with a value dependent on the hardware/software.  No choice occurs.

You could say that you don't have a free will because your brain decides something in the subconscious. I don't believe in a conscious free will. The idea that we have this is an illusion. The brain makes it choices, through calculation, in the subconscious. Then the consciousness is informed.

What do you think Consciousness is?

You mean your parents hard-wired you, either through genetic material or through education, that Jesus is the son of god?

No, it means that what I believe is determined by my genetics and my environment.  I cannot rationally investigate beliefs and make a decision.

Lack of existence? Surely one exists without faith in god. Surely one exists without god.

How can you know something is unexplainable? Surely there are explainations about consciousness.

As I asked up above, what is consciousness?

You seem to claim that consciousness can't exist without a soul. Many animals are conscious and according to christianity they do not have souls. So this doesn't compute.

Furtermore, there is no sign at all of a soul. If a soul influences my thoughts every moment so that I can be conscious then why can't the soul influence any measuring instrument?

As far as I know there is no proof that god influences someones brain either directly or indirectly. But people do seem to make choices.

People make choices, but the very notion of 'choice' conflicts with materialism.  Is this not pretty strong evidence of a soul?  I'm guessing you'll respond that a soul is not needed to make choices.  If you believe that, what purely physical mechanism grants you the ability to choose?

As far as physical evidence of a soul, the soul is by definition non-physical.  Of course it cannot be detected.

But people given the same input will give different output. Your brain decides by making a calculation and you are your brain. I do not believe in any other form of free will. I do not see how that would work. And I do not understand how god, or non-materialism, can make that possible.

Same inputs different outputs can be explained easily by the fact that the brain is a non-linear system.  Even small changes in software(past experiences) or hardware(Genetics) can give drastically different results.

So you do believe that the brain functions as a computer.  If so, what form of free will do you believe in?  Performing a calculation gives no free will.  My Ti-83 has no free will.  Not even when I put a really cool function in.(and I've put some pretty killer functions in )

Your brain makes these choices. Not your consciousness of your consciousness. Limiting 'you' to the consciousness of your consciousness is not accurate. The way you put it I do not believe there is free will.

If your brain takes a set of inputs and spits out a reaction, there is no choice.  My computer doesn't choose to write these words.  The input of my keystrokes goes through the hardware/software, and manifests itself in this post.  No choice there.

There are many differences between computers and between our brains. Most are not known to man and most of those that are known to man are not known to me. An important thing to know is that the human brain is a neural net and that the average computer is not.

To me your question of 'How can a machine/human choose?' is 'How does a machine/human choose?'.

No, my question is "how can?"  Do you have an answer?

I can't look in your brain but it seems you are the one with the congnitive dissonance.

I'm not sure if you mean anything in this other than an insult, so I'll just ignore it.

Randomness does give the ability to choose.

Nope.  There are thousands of random things in which no choice is involved.  The movements of fluid and the weather are both chaotic systems, yet they make no choices.  A choice involves this.  There are two possible outcomes, you are able to select which one.

Since quantum mechanics is involved in this, so is Heisenberg uncertaincy. In the case of god god made the world in such a way that he is throwing dice. He does not know what choise a human will make because he will literally have to throw the dice to find out. The fact that God created a world that is fundamentally uncertain he can't know anything about this.

Yes, this part of quantum mechanics seems very hard for humans to swallow. As I noted Einstein couldn't do it. Some other famous QM quotes:

    * "I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
          o Erwin Schrödinger

    * "For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it."
          o Niels Bohr

      * "If that turns out to be true, I'll quit physics."
          o Max von Laue

      * "Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!"
         o Max Born



Its not just that our predictions are uncertain. It also means that a particle is literally a representation of several packages of chances. It is always something that is uncertain. And it is not that something cannot be measured more certain. It is at its core. An electron isn't a point of negative charge. It is a 'cloud' of chances appearing all over the place.

It is believed that there are no 'hidden variables'. Scientists think that there have been experiments that prove my statement above. That all subatomic particles are indefinite things, ambigious things, they are unclear. This is called the Copenhagen interpretation and there have been some very complex experiments, so I am told, that prove this interpretation is correct. It is not that our theory at the moment is uncertain. It is nature itself that is.

Your analysis of God only works if God is constrained by time.  Time is no more relevant to God than height width or depth.

-------------------------------------------
Tic-tac, it's cool that you had a similar line of thought.  I've been very intrigued by this little idea.

You receive input through your senses of touch, taste, sight, hearing, and smell --- AS WELL AS feedback from your own mind. Imagine you woke up the next morning in a black box with no external input was able to influence you. You could still make decisions. Your decisions would be entirely based on the feedback from your own thoughts. Despite all the free will in the world, my guess is your first thought would be something along the lines of "why am I in this box?" perhaps followed up by feelings of fear and questions about whether or not you would die in the box. From there, it becomes more free form, as your unique mind looks for solutions to how to escape the box.

The lack of sensory information would be in itself information.  It would let your brain know that something very strange is happening. 

Tac-tic, you want to know if God can exist without logic.  I think the better question is, can logic exist without God?

[prometheus]

A computer cannot reason.  It is nothing more than a very complex electrical circuit.  Based on how it is designed, it will give certain responses to different inputs.  There is no reason in the circuit.  It is nothing more than a string of operations.

According to most definitions of reasoning you are just wrong. It doesn't matter how a computer does it. If a computer can reach a conclusion based on premises using methodology by definition a computer is reasoning.

How is a calculation making a choice.  Electricity flows through a circuit, and comes out with a value dependent on the hardware/software.  No choice occurs.

If you want to call a choice 'not a real choice' because nothing magical happens then this is up to you. How do you think people make choices?

What do you think Consciousness is?

Being aware of that what is happening around you. Surely many animals are conscious. But there are also many layers of consciousness.

No, it means that what I believe is determined by my genetics and my environment.  I cannot rationally investigate beliefs and make a decision.

That is your decision, I guess. If you think your genetics and your enviroment decide that you should not think about this. You are just as resonsible for your views as anyone who doesn't think they do not have a choice.

People make choices, but the very notion of 'choice' conflicts with materialism.  Is this not pretty strong evidence of a soul?  I'm guessing you'll respond that a soul is not needed to make choices.  If you believe that, what purely physical mechanism grants you the ability to choose?

Uuuh... Maybe the brain... Maybe you are making the distinction between choices and 'free choices'. I think the idea of a 'free choice' is silly. Just take a situation where one has to make a decision and then try to figure out what influences these decisions. For example when someone has to make the choice between eating brussels sprout and cabbage a very important factor is the sensitivity of ones toungue. If your tongue is very sensitive you will not like sprouts because they are too bitter.
If you are going to decide what car to buy you also don't have all the freedom to choice 'what you want'. If you have children you need a bigger car. If you live a large distance from your job you need a efficient car that does not use up a lot of fuel, etc. A choice is a calculation.

I find the part I quoted here very strange. It just seems to me you are making a silly argument because you like to believe in a soul.
First off you claim you do not have the ability to choose yourself and that is why you believe in god/souls. Then you claim that one must believe in souls/god because materialism rules out making choices. This means you should not believe in god because you are religious without choosing to be but that atheists should because they believe in materialism.

As far as physical evidence of a soul, the soul is by definition non-physical.  Of course it cannot be detected.

Then it cannot influence my physical body. Really, a soul cannot do anything when it is non-physical.

Same inputs different outputs can be explained easily by the fact that the brain is a non-linear system.  Even small changes in software(past experiences) or hardware(Genetics) can give drastically different results.

Yes, the difference in 'software' is a different choice.

So you do believe that the brain functions as a computer.

This is scientific fact.

If so, what form of free will do you believe in?  Performing a calculation gives no free will. My Ti-83 has no free will.

I do not believe in free will. Not many people that study the subject do. I believe people make choices through calculations done in the subconsciousness.

If your brain takes a set of inputs and spits out a reaction, there is no choice.  My computer doesn't choose to write these words.  The input of my keystrokes goes through the hardware/software, and manifests itself in this post.  No choice there.

You can write software that you can give situations in which choices need to be made.

No, my question is "how can?"  Do you have an answer?

To me this is the same question. Through calculation.

I'm not sure if you mean anything in this other than an insult, so I'll just ignore it.

You suggested that people are cognitively dissonant. And now it is an insult to be ignored?

I do not want to sound arrogant but to me this whole 'problem' is clear. To you it isn't. You claim that a very abstract argument, which is also silly to me, proves something as concrete as a soul exists. I mean, if a soul really existed then the laws of nature tell one it would be able to proof it in a matter of seconds. Surely if souls existed you could come up with something much stronger than this.

Nope.  There are thousands of random things in which no choice is involved.  The movements of fluid and the weather are both chaotic systems, yet they make no choices.  A choice involves this.  There are two possible outcomes, you are able to select which one.

Uuh, that is something totally different and you must know this. Either me or a computer can just throw up a coin and make a choise based on that outcome.

Your analysis of God only works if God is constrained by time.  Time is no more relevant to God than height width or depth.

This claim is baseless. No exceptions to the laws of nature have been observed. Therefore it is logical to assume god also isn't one. The burden of proof is on you when you claim god is beyond time, or any other law of nature.

[tac-tics]

Tac-tic, you want to know if God can exist without logic.  I think the better question is, can logic exist without God?

If God here is used in the Christian sense, then yes.
I think if there is anything in this world to be called a god, it is logic itself.

I don't think there is a need for humans to pray to, revere, fear, or obey some all powerful being. However, an appreciation of the aesthetics of logic and of nature is always a nice thing to have Not to mention social virtues such as trust, integrity, and kindness towards others.

[tac-tics]

Come now, you two. Let's not let this degenerate into a flame war. If you don't like other people's comments, please ignore them.

[musik_man]

I do not believe in free will. Not many people that study the subject do. I believe people make choices through calculations done in the subconsciousness.

If you don't believe in Free will, we have no disagreement.  I merely hold that free will and atheism are irreconcilable.  I believe in free will.  I view it as self-evident, so I, therefore, must reject atheism.

I wonder what you make of this 'proof of minimal free will' that I read a while back.

1.    With respect to the free-will issue, we should refrain from believing falsehoods. (premise)
2.    Whatever should be done can be done. (premise)
3.    If determinism is true, then whatever can be done, is done. (premise)
4.    I believe MFT. (premise)
5.    With respect to the free-will issue, we can refrain from believing falsehoods. (from 1,2)
6.    If determinism is true, then with respect to the free will issue, we refrain from believing falsehoods. (from 3,5)
7.    If determinism is true, then MFT is true. (from 6,4)
8.    MFT is true. (from 7)

Here is the link
https://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/fwill.htm

[edit]BTW you said earlier that you don't believe in determinism.  If you don't believe in free will or determinism, what do you believe?

[musik_man]

If God here is used in the Christian sense, then yes.
I think if there is anything in this world to be called a god, it is logic itself.

I don't think there is a need for humans to pray to, revere, fear, or obey some all powerful being. However, an appreciation of the aesthetics of logic and of nature is always a nice thing to have Not to mention social virtues such as trust, integrity, and kindness towards others.

I read an interesting arguement a while back.  Assuming a truly materialistic universe, man is entirely built on the Darwinian principles of self-selection.  This would imply that rationality is also a product of self-selection.  If it is, how can we say for certain that it can be used as a tool to find the truth?  Is it not possible that it was more advantageous that man would evolve in such a way that he believes certain falsehoods?

[pianistimo]

it is only when declared 'mentally insane' that people get off the hook.  the catch is, as we are finding out with mussowi and others, that proving this is difficult (and yet, a possibility).  looking at what makes a person 'insane' is almost more groundbreaking than taking a psych class.  (as there are so many different versions of normal and insane).  is there a 'norm.' 

i think we are looking at #1 people that take responsibility for their lives and others (and possibly take God as their inspiration) #2 people that take limited responsiblity  #3 people that take no responsibility for their actions  #4  people that don't even have  clue what they are doing and why they are doing it. 

if there is a God, we are all responsible.  if there is no God - there is no one to care what happens to us good or bad and what the final result of our actions will be.  i prefer to think that there is life after life.  that we have to make concious choices in our lives for our lives to be meaningful.  and, to take responsibility (for good and bad choices) and monitor ourselves according to the laws of God and the laws of man. 

if we are simply 'survival of the fittest' then we are relegated to a place beneath where God set us (not according to who can eat us).  i believe that our dna is much more set than we realize, too, and that we are not a homogonized version of apes.  i think the truth is being proven right now.  so much science is being discovered at this very moment.  it can't help but come out sooner or later.  truth is truth and error will always be error.

[timothy42b]

I had not realized there was such a thing as minimal free will.

If you require free will to be total, I think you must reject it.  But allowing for limitations, just as we allow for limitations in the power of God, makes the argument much different.

In some ways the existence of free will must be a religious argument.  Why do we sin?  Well, duh, because we have a sinful nature.  (abbreviated sin nature by Baptists).   That's the way our creator constructed us.  (well, supposedly He once made us perfect and Adam screwed up.  But regardless, everybody since then seems to have a sinful nature.  ) 

So how can we be blamed for sinning, if we are just acting the way God made us?  Isn't it really God's fault? 

The only way to get God off the hook is to say that in spite of our nature, we *really* somehow have the free will not to sin.  So the concept of free will had to be invented.  It's not that there is any evidence for free will, it's just that if it doesn't exist we become uncomfortable with what that says about the nature of God. 

pianistimo, your info about angels and Satan comes from the book of Enoch, which is not part of the biblical canon.  So, no divine inspiration for those stories. 

[pianistimo]

the 'spiritual energy' not to sin is given to us throught the Holy Spirit at baptism.  all of the gospels record the example of Christ so you don't have to go through the extra books of the bible to find out how we should emulate Christ to be free of the 'law of sin and death.'  (Paul's books are good too, because they explain what Christ meant about being the 'slave' of whomever we serve - whether death or life or money or eternal life).  you see, i think most people live for the here and now.  if you are a Christian you are also thinking about later.  about the judgement of God (which as i read in the bible as it is compiled now) - that we are actually judged right now as Christians as we know right and do right - and when we sin ask for the forgiveness of God through his son Jesus Christ.   We are not in fear of being judged harshly at the return of Jesus Christ because we have been praying to him all along.  He is our intercessor and high priest.  we want nothing to do with satan or the ways of satan because he was a deceiver from the beginning.  He tempted Christ after the fourty days and nights of fasting - and offerred him all the 'kingdoms' that he could see (through a vision?) on the earth at that time and possibly through our time.  if Satan didn't own the 'kingdoms' at that time (until the ressurrection of Christ - and soon second coming) - how could he offer them to Christ.  and, why would he quote verses about angels holding Christ up if he committed suicide by jumping.  these are direct verses about satan and demonic thoughts vs. God and the 'good' angels.  so we see a spiritual battle that takes place that we cannot see (as spirit is not visible, unless we see a result from it that we can deduce is from God or Satan).  you can 'test' the spirits by seeing if they acknowledge that Christ was ressurrected from the dead and sits at the right hand of God.  they don't want to acknowledge a higher power than themselves and will soon start babbling as soon as you mention Jesus Christ, God, or the kingdom of God if you are speaking to a person who is demonically driven.

there is no way to escape death the other way, as i see it.  we can say it isn't so - but when you die and find yourself ressurrected and having to 'pay the bill' yourself instead of accepting Christ's sacrifice - there won't be the reassurred attitude that science could give us an accurate idea of how much we are worth to God and how much we mean to him.  science (though helpful) doesn't add the help of the idea of 'love.'  to truly love God and your neighbor as yourself.  many people do show a form of love to each other - but the Holy Spirit is distinguished as coming from God himself - and therefore not 'manufactured' by ourselves.  we cannot truly come up with 'good' of ourselves except what we think are 'good' actions.   the Holy Spirit is like going through a car wash on the INSIDE.  it cleans us of the dirt we CAN't see.  the thoughts in our minds that are not according to God's will but perhaps  fit the ideas of man's thoughts on 'becoming good' or 'becoming successful.'  we become more aware of what pleases God and think and meditate more on His thoughts than our own (by reading the bible). 

the fact that God chose for outreach and discipleship fishermen, tax accountants, prostitutes, housewives, tent makers, etc. shows that he didn't go to the 'successful' people as we think.  he went to the 'average joe/jane' and showed them that the 'world's ideas' of success are not His.  to him, success is letting Him carry our burdens, so we are free from sin and guilt.  then we do not suffer as much (depression, unworthiness, anxiety) as do a whole lot of people who are considered 'successful.'  as i see it, we have an eternal calling not just one on this planet.  it is to help bring the world that is coming tommorrow into reality today.  a world where Christ is king and we are serving one another as he served us.  it's very difficult without prayer to Him everyday.  He is our ultimate strength and not ourselves.  'I can do all things through Him that strengthens me.'

 

[pianistimo]

i thought of one other thing, because some christians believe in baptism before you really know or make a concious decision about being baptized.  Christ was baptized himself at around age 30.  if He is an example for us - and fully knew what He was committing himself to, it would mean that he wants all of us to be grafted together into a knowing community of believers and not automatons. 

in acts 8:27 the disciple philip meets the ethiopian eunuch who was a 'court official of the queen of the ethiopians' and was reading isaiah and asked philip who this passage of scripture was referring to: 'he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before it's shearer is silent.  so He does not open His mouth.  in humiliation His judgement was TAKEN AWAY; who shall relate His generation?  for his life is removed from the earth.'  this scripture, to me, explains that there are no living relatives descended from Jesus Christ (children) except that ALL of US are God's children.  he also, after accepting baptism, knew that death would have no real power over him!  he was not afraid to die three years later.

and, finally, after philip explained to the eunuch who this prophecy was referring to (actually a prophecy of Christ) he 'preached Jesus to him.'  then, the eunuch said 'look! water! what prevents me from being baptized?'  and philip said 'IF (a choice) if you believe with all your heart, you may.'  and he answered 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'  then the eunuch went on his way rejoicing.  God allowed him to see a 'miracle' after his baptism (philip being snatched away by the spirit of God) to help his belief.  not all of us see miracles so soon after baptism, but in my own life - i have felt the warmth and love and protection of God from the moment of this 'inception.'  it is a new birth because you are still a baby and still do things that aren't right.  but, you learn because the Holy Spirit prompts you about what is right.  THESE ARE CHOICES.  concious choices.  God wants us to be able to make good decisions.  otherwise why would we be judged (as the parables say about the stewards and the parable of the talents).  we have choices all the time that we have to decide if we will 'do right' or 'do wrong' according to either God's law or man's law.

 

[ahinton]

In contrast to some of the quite long answers in this long thread, here's  short one.

Yes, there is a God.

J S Bach.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

In contrast to some of the quite long answers in this long thread, here's  short one.

Yes, there is a God.

J S Bach.

Best,

Alistair

"Bach gave us God's word, Beethoven God's fire, and Mozart God's laughter.

And God gave us music, that we might pray without words."

I have no clue where that quote comes from, or even if I remembered it correctly.   

[pianowelsh]

tim.  This will not be lengthy - i wont even begin to address all the points brought up BUT we must be quite clear God didnt make us sinfull. In Eden Adam and Eve knew what it was to live righteously and without fear before God. However they were created will potential (as are many things) They had the potential to obey God OR disobey God.. They choose disobedience because they were decieved. As a consequence not only did every human being ever since fall under the power of sin but even the very ground we live on and the planet we dwell in it says the earth was cursed (we are also earth - ashes to ashes - dust to dust...read the creation story). Therefore the world is without hope of redemption.  That is if we discount JESUS who was foretold from Genesis right through to his birth who was to come to set captives free from the power of sin and death through not only his death on the cross where the payment for our sin was made but also in his ressurection where he demonstrated to Satan that his power is immesurably greater than death and corruption.  God has also said that his son is coming again in Glory (not like the last time) and when He does the dead/sleeping who are Christ's redeemed people will be physically ressurected and go to be with him and that the earth as we know it will pass away (literally come apart at the seems..groaning etc) and that there will be a new heaven and a new earth that will not see corruption and where there is no pain or death. Now those are awesome provisions on God's part! Therefore we can conclude as many were murmurring that God is Love! and loving towards us. TRUE he also commands us to love oneanother 'as I have loved you' now thats some tall order in the light of thoses things I just mentioned. Agreed its often not practiced and I'll tell you a secret.... its often not practiced because the only way we can love oneanother like that is to have first been loved by God in that way and to know his love for us through his son Jesus. If we havent experienced love we struggle to give it. we love hi because he first loved us. He has made Christians his very own family so we can call him 'daddy God' or Abba Father.  To be clear we are not sons in the way that Christ IS God's only son because Christ has eternally coexisted with God the father and God the holy spirit -their relationship is on a different dynamic level that which we can fully understand. We are adopted sons and daughters of the living God. Jesus gives the illustration of the vine and the branches and being grafted in - so are we. As the implant takes root so to speak and taps into the vines nutrients it shares more and more incommon with the vine. Similarly the Christian is conformed more and more to the image of Christ - growth being an essential part of being a Christian (by their fruits you shall know them et.al). Anyway interesting quote exploring 'great' composers spirituality. I see something of God's character revealled in most music in various ways. God is infinitely creative and the depth and totality of his attributes are beyond our capacity to take in so in the same way we wonder at the profunidty of a fantasic piece of music we can marvel at the awesomeness of God and never get bored.