Free Will

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
People in the 22nd century do not exist. They may never exist.

At this point in time they know nothing.


You assume God is just like us subject to time just as we are. I don't assume that.

Perhaps, Elman, just PERHAPS I know what the word "Transcendent" means, perhaps you don't, and perhaps your argument doesn't make any sense, or perhaps it isn't EVEN an argument.
You know why?
A refutation of a claim is not a claim in itself.

"at this point in time they know nothing"
Oh, yeah, good one Elman!
I suppose now I know nothing about Abraham Lincoln!
Simply because, according to your view, people in the future can't possibly know about what happened in the past, because we live in the present.

People in the future do not exist, therefore they cannot know the past. You exist so you can know the past. Very elementary.

What kind of tripe are you trying to put across here?
And I feel, quite frankly, I'm not the only one here that feels this way - you're simply refuting every single strand or line of argument we all present, whether or not you contradict yourself in your own refutations!

Can't find anything to deal with there. Actually nothing said there is there?

So please - don't tell me what I assume, because you simply, (and through observational techniques I have found this) have demonstrated that YOU do not understand what is being said here.

It is correct that much of what you say is not understandable to me.

When I say "God can see all of time, like a book open before him, he can see every page and every word that is written, where as we can see only the line upon which we sit, and are walking along" I do not LITERALLY mean God has a book infront of him - OK?
It's an analogy!!!

I did not say it was not an analogy. What I was saying was it was an analogy that did not fit our issues.

Do you know what that means?

Not all the time.

It means I'm demonstrating a point of view through a comparison from a set of imagery / concept to shows the similarities and demonstrate my argument in a SIMPLIFIED FORM.

And I was saying it did not fit our issues.

It SHOULD make it easier to understand. But obviously, someone has to pick a hole in the analogy, and even then, they go in and pick open a hole that's NOT EVEN THERE!
To say that "people in the 22nd century don't exist" shows a COMPLETE misunderstanding of the hypothetical nature of an analogy.

If the analogy is to stand up it must be possible, right?

Alright...so what if there's a chance that people may not exist in the future - but then we'd have to take into account ALL the possibilities , and then where exactly would that leave us?
Oh yes - so dinosaurs could then reappear from an island that has been buried, and then the nuclei attached to this molecule of water could split - causing a massive explosion and the entire human race could turn into blobby-water beings!

You have lost me again.

Brilliant Elman! You've deduced that there's a chance people mightn't exist in the future - but for the sake of reasoning, and for the sake of continuity (i.e, humans have done alright for two million years [6044 if you're a creationist, and even then, the world has been designed, so you're catered for] so why should they suddenly disappear?) let's just say that things go as they always have done.

Right.
There is a past, there is a present.
This present moves into the past.
Therefore, to the previous present, we are effectively in the future.

Following Elman?

I think so.

Now to us in this NEW present, the things known beforehand are now old, and handed down knowledge.
EXAMPLE: How to drive a car.

To a present beyond this pastpresent, (as the present moment becomes past continually) the knowledge of : How to fly a car, is also old.
But to us, it hasn't occured yet.

You lost me again. Unless you are saying when we are in the present we don't know the future, but why would you be saying that?

Now - if you can stretch your imagination - then perhaps you can see that time is moving inexorably forwards.

Oh you are saying time is liner. Yes I agree with that-except maybe for God it is not. Perhaps for Him it is the eternal present moment.

No?
See.....the time from your knowing what I have written, to the time you respond causes these words to be the past.
But, since I had not written them until I typed, they were the future, now present as I type them, and past as you read them.

Yeah liner for us I got it.

This shows that knowledge is GAINED by the future, and also that the future is INEVITABLE

.No I think there will be an end of time and even in the meantime knowledge ebs and flows sometime going backward.

It also shows that time seemingly follows a linear pattern, and that things seem pretty mundane and ordered, so something extreme happening is unlikely, and it would have to happen to stop the series of events like these ones, from continuing onwards as they always do.

I agree with the time is liner part.

Transcendent: Otherworldly, unconfined, unrestrained, magnificent, beyond the limits and confines of time and space.

OK What was the point there. It went right over my head.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
If you read what I wrote you would see I said neither you nor I can understand what being outside of time or not subject to time means. We don't understand what we are talking about when we talk about God.

I'm sorry....Elman......you are Christian, right?
It's just.....saying things like
"We don't understand what we are talking about when we talk about God" seems a very odd thing to say... as, well, if you're a Christian, you're going to be talking about God ALOT, right?

I think most Christians would agree with me that God is far beyond our ability to understand or comprehend.

So aren't you saying a load of stuff you don't understand?

When ever anyone says to you they understand God, you better watch them.

And equally, aren't you wasting your time?

Actually according to Paul in Acts 17 seeking God is the very reason we exist. No it is not a waste of time to seek to understand God and His will.

If you can't understand God, nor can you understand any of his properties ("we cannot know what being outside of time means"), then why bother?

We cannot know what the word eternal means but we still talk about it. I believe we can understand one of the properties of God to a limited extent. He is loving.

And thirdly and finally, if the above post is your refutation to the arguments put forward by several members in regards to determinism - then, erm....
you do realise that most are trying to argue using the concept of the Christian God, right?
I mean, if you say "we can't know", then wouldn't it be sensible to discard the idea of God right now?

Can we know that things are determined or not? If we cannot know that wouldn't it be sensible to discard the idea of determined right now? See how foolish that is? If we refused to talk about anything except what we knew for sure, we sould have to keep our mouths shut.

Then perhaps we could argue FOR or AGAINST determinism in terms of environmental and genetic factors, rather than attempting to play about with this completely unknowable God of yours.

You can always make a rule that God must not be discussed but in your search for truth, the more rules you make about what cannot be discussed, the more likely you are to not find the truth for which you seek.

 

[elman]

It was only a matter of time before one of us flipped, physxx... I guess I win this time, though

(I understand your pain, of course. Well done for surviving this long, and I hope you feel better, now!)

Am I the source of pain for you? Please note guessing you win because someone has to go to the bathroom is less than competely realistic.

 

[FishFace]

Do you call that a response?

Yes. If "outside of time" is not understandable, then it doesn't make sense - thus, 'nonsense.'

Is that the kind of response you want from me?

Experience tells me elaboration is futile, and others have given the response I would have; if God is incomprehensible, why are Christians making claims about him left right and centre? You can't simultaneously say "we don't understand God" and then say "God is loving."

What are you saying God cannot do? I think you are saying that God can observe the universe even though He is outside of or not subject to time. If that is what you are saying I agree.

I am saying that if the passage of time is dependent on how you observe the universe, the passage of time is essentially an illusion, since when we say "the passage of time" we mean a real, objective occurrence, not simply an artifact of our observation.

No I know what a strawman is so I need not waste my time that way.

Then you wouldn't classify the argument that we are actually making as a strawman committed by us, and you would recognise that your "rebuttal" that "God's knowledge doesn't cause our actions" is a strawman of our position.

I agree that claim is not supported by evidence and cannot therefore be proven to be true. I also agree this is true of God and being outside of time. However there are reasons to believe in God and a being that is not subject to time, but I see no reasons to believe in your cosmic teapot.

That is the subject of another topic - the point is that you made unsubstantiated claims, without taking into account still-open arguments counter to your position.

 

[MARK777]

The arrogance of this age is unbeleiveable, let me try and explain things in a little more detail, us, humans have finite minds, when probing for answers especially from a scientific stand, there is only so wide we can go, and so high, and so low, through recording of this evidence and new technology we can extend on this width, height and depth to gain greater knowledge, but from the advancement of scientific technology and knowledge, there are still simple things right in front of our eyes which we cannot fully grasp.

Take gravity for example, why does our understanding of this keep changing all the time, its because we cannot fully fathum what it is that causes it to happen like it does, we still do not have a full explanation, this is something which is in our midst, we can see work and calculate, but still have not fully understood,
so why does it seem so difficult to come to an agreement that God must be the same, according to what I beleive he is the source for all that we can see, understand, comprehend, and hypothesise, so surely the source is going to be the most complex than the effect of what the souce made happen.

You are trying to use your head full of scientific knowledge to try and fathum out time, space, eternity and God, and take offense when a person says that you wont be able to fully understand, but in the same breath we know that scientific knowledge cannot be used efficiently to fathum many wonders of the world, its like trying to use a straw to measure the earths diametre, its not gonna be an accurate, fair conclusion.


Judging by the conclusion you guys have come up with, since gravity cannot be seen, or fully understood, it does not make sense, thus, 'nonsense'

 

[phsyxx]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman


I agree with the time is liner part.

Linear?
Or is that an American variation in spelling?


Erm - yes. So you agree with the fact that time is linear.

Therefore, it must run along this linear line.
Nothing that is in the past can be changed.
Essentially, all moments will eventually become past.
Therefore, at the end of time (as you mentioned) all moments will be unchangeable.


Now - imagine, God is outside of time.
I'm not trying to assume anything by saying that, I'm only putting forwards my understanding of the Christian God's expressed properties.
Whether or not God has these properties I'll never be able to tell, but, you have to understand, we are working on an assumption throughout this entire discussion - God has not been totally and irrefutably confirmed to exist.

We assume that God exists, and therefore, let us assume that God has the properties applied to him by Christians.
God is omniscient
God is omnipotent
God is benevolent
God is immutable
God is eternal/beyond time (the interpretation of this property is generally that God can perceive all of time, all of space, and can see every event like a snapshot, an individual photo for every moment that ever is, was , or [from your perspective] will be.).


Therefore, to God, all events (for us to be able to understand it) have happened.

God must KNOW what these events are, and they must also be in line with his will (omnipotence is impossible to overcome).
Therefore, God must KNOW all events.

Therefore, this knowledge CANNOT BE CHANGED. (Immutable)

Therefore, all events are essentially SET.

However, you nor I are God.
Therefore, we do not have this knowledge, and as such, cannot know what the events are going to be.
Therefore, they seem random.
Therefore, it seems that we can influence these random events.
Therefore, we believe ourselves to be the influencing factor.
Therefore, we believe ourselves to be free.




Elman. I'm quite happy for you to disagree with me, but please, give me a clear expression of your point of view, and your reasons for that view -
but without necessarily using possible flaws in my argument to express your position on the matter.

 

[FishFace]

You are trying to use your head full of scientific knowledge to try and fathum out time, space, eternity and God, and take offense when a person says that you wont be able to fully understand

Take offense? Not at all. It's simply contradictory to say that "we cannot comprehend God" and then turn away to someone else and say, "God is loving." How do you propose to know that God is loving if you cannot comprehend him?

Judging by the conclusion you guys have come up with, since gravity cannot be seen, or fully understood, it does not make sense, thus, 'nonsense'

No-one has either said or implied that, not even remotely. Elman is the one saying that "outside of time" and "God" are concepts that aren't understandable, not us.

 

[MARK777]

That is a false argument, we can say gravity holds us here on earth, we understand that it pulls everything to the center of earth, but we cannot fully comprehend gravity, but we can to the degree that we know what its cause and effect is, it doesnt make the effects of gravity any different or less because we do not fully understand it yet.

It is the same with God, we understand who and what he is to a certain degree, we know enough to know him as a person, and enough to learn about his charactor and nature and appreciate and respect that which he has let be known, however there are certain aspects of God which we do not profess to know, it doesnt make him any less to us, or make the relationship any less real.

From what I understand about God so far is, He is Eternal, he has no beginning or end, but rather he has always being, he has not grown or got bigger or greater he has always remained perfect in essense, intelligence, power, he exists in light, he is light according to the scripture, pure light and spirit, everything that has come into being has come through his thought, essense and power, when creation began that had a beginning, therefore from the first creation time began, before that time God always was, existing in perfect essense.

It is how God actually exists, what light he is made of, how he holds all things together, how he can think something into existance from the power of his thought that we cannot comprehend, or how he posesses foreknowledge and can see everything at once that we cannot comprehend, but it doesnt make it any less real, we can try and comprehend, and that is great and good to do sometimes, I actually quiet enjoy trying to work out that which we cannot really fully understand and have come up with some explanations and ideas on how it could have happened and how things worked out the way they are, but they are based on my rational mind comprehending that which is said and adding to it, but this would not conclude as an answer but only really a theory, I think this is what elman has been trying to get across, its the fact that our brain cannot stetch far enough to fully comprehend until we see it for ourselves, then we will have greater knowledge and understanding and will probably be slapping our foreheads, if there is such thing as a spiritual forehead

My point is God says he is spirit, hes not material, he says he existed before the material world existed, but the problem is we live in a material world, thats what makes it difficult to understand, because we all tend to attach that which we see, feel or think that something associated with God, we think of him as a person because he talks to us as a person, but then he says he is light, we cannot understand how light can talk to us, we cant even really fathum how something exists as light, we can associate that in the natural world and conclude that light does indeed give life and is associated with life, it gives us the ability to see, all colours come from light, it gives us heat, but then he might just use that analogy to let us know that he does a similar job, that he is our light and life like the Sun light and life to earth, without the sun and light, then life wouldnt exist as we know it.

But its these things that we can only try and comprehend and draw our own conclusions on, but it still might not be completely right.

 

[phsyxx]

That is a false argument, we can say gravity holds us here on earth, we understand that it pulls everything to the center of earth, but we cannot fully comprehend gravity, but we can to the degree that we know what its cause and effect is, it doesnt make the effects of gravity any different or less because we do not fully understand it yet.

Show me some of the effects of God.

 

[MARK777]

Show me some of the effects of God.

Stand up and stretch, walk to the window, look at the sky, then look at a tree, clap your hands and hear the sound, jump and feel the effects of gravity, take some fruit and eat and enjoy it, take a pen and paper and draw that which is in your mind, for everything we see is the product of that which God has seen in his mind.

Draw a tree, he drew it first and turned it into a reality, just like the person who seen a bird and wanted to do that which the bird did, namely fly, slowly turned that thought into a reality, machines are an extension of our perception, mind, and reality, just as us and our world are an extension of God's perception, mind and reality.

Everthing we do is an extention of that which he set in place, if birds didnt exist, would we still be able to fly? if Dolphins didnt exist, would we have sonar? if bats didnt exist, would we have radar? everything we think of is an extension of that which has already been thought.

 

[FishFace]

That is a false argument, we can say gravity holds us here on earth, we understand that it pulls everything to the center of earth, but we cannot fully comprehend gravity, but we can to the degree that we know what its cause and effect is, it doesnt make the effects of gravity any different or less because we do not fully understand it yet.

When we say "gravity" we mean the portion of gravity which can be understood - otherwise we'd be talking nonsense.

It is the same with God, we understand who and what he is to a certain degree, we know enough to know him as a person, and enough to learn about his charactor and nature and appreciate and respect that which he has let be known, however there are certain aspects of God which we do not profess to know, it doesnt make him any less to us, or make the relationship any less real.

Then you need to give strict and general guidelines for working out which bits we can understand and which bits we can't. So far you've just got the ad-hoc guideline that whatever seems like a positive quality God has, and anything that contradicts your preconceived dogma is a quality that we might think God has, but doesn't, because God is not fully comprehensible.

But this is all getting off the point, which is free will. Could you please direct your arguments back to the topic in hand.

 

[FishFace]

Stand up and stretch

The effect of biochemical reactions in your muscles, involving the conversion of ATP to ADP, releasing energy which causes a shape-change in certain proteins.

look at the sky

Caused by red light being bent away from the earth due to refraction by the atmosphere, which is there due to gravitation.

clap your hands and hear the sound

Caused by the electromagnetic force.

[etc]

God is not a simple explanation for any of these things. You can't "wrap up" all these observations with the word "God" as you might, for example, be able to "wrap up" the sound of a clap with an explanation of the electromagnetic force.
If you believe in the EM force, you will be rationally persuaded to believe that sound is produced when you clap.
If you believe in God, you will not be rationally persuaded to believe any of the things above.

As such, it is silly to attribute those things to God.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Do you call that a response?

Yes. If "outside of time" is not understandable, then it doesn't make sense - thus, 'nonsense.'

And that is why you are an atheist. God is not understandable, therefore nonsense.

Quote:
Is that the kind of response you want from me?

Experience tells me elaboration is futile, and others have given the response I would have; if God is incomprehensible, why are Christians making claims about him left right and centre? You can't simultaneously say "we don't understand God" and then say "God is loving."

I certainly can say I believe in a Creator who is loving, but I understand this Creator is a being that far beyond my ability to comprehend or understand. That is a very reasonable statment.
Quote:
What are you saying God cannot do? I think you are saying that God can observe the universe even though He is outside of or not subject to time. If that is what you are saying I agree.

I am saying that if the passage of time is dependent on how you observe the universe, the passage of time is essentially an illusion, since when we say "the passage of time" we mean a real, objective occurrence, not simply an artifact of our observation.

The passage of time is as real for us as anything else whe experience. It is not more an illusion than everything else is.

Quote:
No I know what a strawman is so I need not waste my time that way.

Then you wouldn't classify the argument that we are actually making as a strawman committed by us, and you would recognise that your "rebuttal" that "God's knowledge doesn't cause our actions" is a strawman of our position.

No God's knowledge does not cause us to make the choices we make. That is not a strawman. It is simply a response to your statment that God's knowledge determines our actions and makes our choices an illusion.

Quote:
I agree that claim is not supported by evidence and cannot therefore be proven to be true. I also agree this is true of God and being outside of time. However there are reasons to believe in God and a being that is not subject to time, but I see no reasons to believe in your cosmic teapot.

That is the subject of another topic - the point is that you made unsubstantiated claims, without taking into account still-open arguments counter to your position.

The point is that requiring me to sustantiate the existence of a Creator who is not subject to time is not something that anyone is able to do. This does not mean there is no such Creator.

 

[elman]

- yes. So you agree with the fact that time is linear.

Therefore, it must run along this linear line.
Nothing that is in the past can be changed.
Essentially, all moments will eventually become past.
Therefore, at the end of time (as you mentioned) all moments will be unchangeable.


Now - imagine, God is outside of time.
I'm not trying to assume anything by saying that, I'm only putting forwards my understanding of the Christian God's expressed properties.
Whether or not God has these properties I'll never be able to tell, but, you have to understand, we are working on an assumption throughout this entire discussion - God has not been totally and irrefutably confirmed to exist.

We assume that God exists, and therefore, let us assume that God has the properties applied to him by Christians.
God is omniscient
God is omnipotent
God is benevolent
God is immutable
God is eternal/beyond time (the interpretation of this property is generally that God can perceive all of time, all of space, and can see every event like a snapshot, an individual photo for every moment that ever is, was , or [from your perspective] will be.).

I would say God is not subject to time.

Therefore, to God, all events (for us to be able to understand it) have happened.

No I would say they are all happening at once in His eternal present moment, no past, no future from His position, just the eternal moment.

God must KNOW what these events are, and they must also be in line with his will (omnipotence is impossible to overcome).

Omnipotence includes the ability to delegate power and therefore results of this can occur that is not in line with his will.

Therefore, God must KNOW all events.

I agree.

Therefore, this knowledge CANNOT BE CHANGED. (Immutable)

I agree.

Therefore, all events are essentially SET.

Not from our vantage point, only from His.

However, you nor I are God.
Therefore, we do not have this knowledge, and as such, cannot know what the events are going to be.
Therefore, they seem random.
Therefore, it seems that we can influence these random events.
Therefore, we believe ourselves to be the influencing factor.
Therefore, we believe ourselves to be free.

And we are correct and it is not an illusion.

Elman. I'm quite happy for you to disagree with me, but please, give me a clear expression of your point of view, and your reasons for that view -
but without necessarily using possible flaws in my argument to express your position on the matter.

I believe we make choices all the time and I see consequences flowing from those choices. For somone to tell me I am unable to make these choices or that what appears to be choices for me is me being fooled, they need to give me some strong evidence to support this or I just don't believe it. I don't believe the atheists who say I am completely controlled by outside forces, environment and gna etc, and I don't believe the theists who say God controls every detail and therefore God is fooling you into thinking it is your choice but it is really Him doing it. Neither theists nor non theists have yet presented me with credible evidence that my choices are being controled by someone or something other than me.

 

[MARK777]

The effect of biochemical reactions in your muscles, involving the conversion of ATP to ADP, releasing energy which causes a shape-change in certain proteins.



Caused by red light being bent away from the earth due to refraction by the atmosphere, which is there due to gravitation.



Caused by the electromagnetic force.



God is not a simple explanation for any of these things. You can't "wrap up" all these observations with the word "God" as you might, for example, be able to "wrap up" the sound of a clap with an explanation of the electromagnetic force.
If you believe in the EM force, you will be rationally persuaded to believe that sound is produced when you clap.
If you believe in God, you will not be rationally persuaded to believe any of the things above.

As such, it is silly to attribute those things to God.

Okay let me elaborate on this and back to the subject on hand - freewill.

What I was trying to get across was the fact that behind each event or process he does in some way have involement, say when we stretch, we dont think, right am gonna stretch now, and get up and think, right lets stretch, we just stretch, and the action performs a deed, which helps the functionality of the body, but this is pre-programmed, we dont learn to stretch, or get better at it, we just do when our body needs to.

When we look at the sky we can look at it from 2 viewpoints at least, we can look at it and comprehend what it is and why it is there, and what is involved in the process to make it look the way it does, or we can look at it from the viewpoint of beauty, we can appreciate it, we can agree that it is a beautiful day with the Sun beaming down and the sky a deep blue, and enjoy ourselves in that moment, where did that enjoyment come from, why do we appreciate this so much, it is in our inner being to like and enjoy it.

When we look at a tree we can do the same, look at it from the viewpoint of breaking it down to smaller things to help understand it, or we can just look at it and see it for what it is by sight, we have an apreciation towards it but most people dont even know why anymore.

We can clap and hear the sound, I am talking about the tool we use to hear the sound, we take it for granted that it is there but do we really appreciate it, music is an extension of our ears and mind, we make it so we can use our ears to appreciate it, yet our appreciation can easily go towards the maker of the music, but sometimes not a second thought to the maker of the ear, now most people beleive that the ear just happened by chance, can you see how insulting this would be if we knew 100% the creator existed.

The fruit I used as an example because it not only tastes good, but its actually does something good to the body as well, we need it to help function correctly, but nobody even gives it a second thought that maybe that was put there for us to enjoy and keep us healthy, instead we choose to clone it and make tablets and strip it down to a chemical level and tell people they need this instead, we have never made anything better that that which has been provided, doesnt that tell us that maybe there is some intelligence involved in the things we strip down and try and re-produce.

I used the example of drawing something from the mind because to me this world (natural) is a drawing of his mind, to me it makes perfect sense, how can perfect patterns appear from nothing, how can there be a perfect code that goes through all of nature and us without an Author?

Its like an operating system appearing on a computer before an OS was even invented, and not only that, but one that never crashes, bleeps, and also somehow can run from its own power and stay self sufficient and look after itself without any involvement at all, its more likely that Bill Gates exists and designed an operating system so why not a creator for life as we know it, our operating system called life.

 

[FishFace]

And that is why you are an atheist. God is not understandable, therefore nonsense.

Did you intend to not make any counter-argument?

I certainly can say I believe in a Creator who is loving, but I understand this Creator is a being that far beyond my ability to comprehend or understand. That is a very reasonable statment.

How do you propose it is reasonable to say you can't comprehend something, but that you can comprehend that that thing is loving? It's a contradiction.

The passage of time is as real for us as anything else whe experience. It is not more an illusion than everything else is.

By "illusory" I mean that the passage of time is not objective (as I've explained) and you've not made any counter-argument to my reasons for saying that is the case)
(Once again, you've just restated your initial case)

No God's knowledge does not cause us to make the choices we make. That is not a strawman. It is simply a response to your statment that God's knowledge determines our actions and makes our choices an illusion.

There you go again with the strawman. Can I again suggest you look it up on wikipedia?
I never claimed that God's knowledge determines our actions, only that God's knowledge shows that our actions are determined. That makes your reply a strawman.

The point is that requiring me to sustantiate the existence of a Creator who is not subject to time is not something that anyone is able to do. This does not mean there is no such Creator.

If there's no possible evidence for the creator (i.e. substantiation for the claim) then why would anyone agree with you?

 

[FishFace]

Its like an operating system appearing on a computer before an OS was even invented, and not only that, but one that never crashes, bleeps, and also somehow can run from its own power and stay self sufficient and look after itself without any involvement at all, its more likely that Bill Gates exists and designed an operating system so why not a creator for life as we know it, our operating system called life.

Three points. First of all, I would like to say again that "God" does not in any way explain what we see before us. For concept A to explain concept B, concept A must provide the reason for concept B - that means that, believing in A, we must be able to use our reasoning ability to work out B.
I took the example of a hand clapping. Concept A here is the electromagnetic force, which governs how molecules in the air interact. Taking this, plus a definition of sound, we would be able to work out that clapping produces sound.
If we were to try out God with this, he would be a different concept A. But, believing in God, we would never in a million years work out or deduce any of the things you listed. This means that God simply "doesn't work" as an explanation for them.

My second point is that, if you're saying that God is an explanation of all these wonderful things then, unless you have some reason to make a distinction, God must also be the reason for all of the horrible things in the world. The "beeps and crashes" in the operating system. God must also explain the earthquakes and the diseases and the droughts.
If you're saying that all the wonderful things in the world need an explanation, then all the horrible things do, to. And God, as creator, is the ultimate explanation so, even if you're going to explain these things with human free will or Satan, it all boils down to God and his initial act of creation.

Thirdly and finally, if you're going to demand explanation of things like the sky and the sun, why do you not demand an explanation of God himself? It's silly to demand an explanation of the universe but not of God - if God can "just exist," then the universe could, instead.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
And that is why you are an atheist. God is not understandable, therefore nonsense.

Did you intend to not make any counter-argument?

Are you totally unable to recognize a counter argument?


Quote:
I certainly can say I believe in a Creator who is loving, but I understand this Creator is a being that is far beyond my ability to comprehend or understand. That is a very reasonable statment.

How do you propose it is reasonable to say you can't comprehend something, but that you can comprehend that that thing is loving? It's a contradiction.

No it is not a contradiction. For me to say God is beyond my understanding is not the same thing as saying I can know nothing about God or understand nothing about God. I know what being loving is but I cannot understand compete and perfect love. That is not a contradiction.


Quote:
The passage of time is as real for us as anything else we experience. It is not more of an illusion than everything else is.

By "illusory" I mean that the passage of time is not objective (as I've explained) and you've not made any counter-argument to my reasons for saying that is the case)
(Once again, you've just restated your initial case)

Onde again you have not responded to my response. The passage of time is as objective as my existence is.

Quote:
No God's knowledge does not cause us to make the choices we make. That is not a strawman. It is simply a response to your statment that God's knowledge determines our actions and makes our choices an illusion.

There you go again with the strawman. Can I again suggest you look it up on wikipedia?

Maybe you should read the wikipedia.

I never claimed that God's knowledge determines our actions, only that God's knowledge shows that our actions are determined. That makes your reply a strawman.

The bottom line between our actions being determined and God's knowledge making them determined is the same. That means my reply was not a strawman.


Quote:
The point is that requiring me to sustantiate the existence of a Creator who is not subject to time is not something that anyone is able to do. This does not mean there is no such Creator.

If there's no possible evidence for the creator (i.e. substantiation for the claim) then why would anyone agree with you?

I did not say there was no possible evidence , but I did say we cannot substanciate the claim for His existence where faith is not needed. People agree with me due to their own experiences--evidence to substatiate their beliefs, and because it gives us some hope for justice and victory over death and evil.

 

[hannahfievel]

Hello Elman,

I just wanted to thank you for reading and responding to my little thought. And for giving an Amen to the basic fact that God does not change or move...We are the ones that move and do "whatever"! Oye!...will we ever learn??!!! Praying "all" come into His wisdom and truth.

Our God is unchangeable, but unfortunately "we" are the ones who allow ourselves to be tossed to and fro with the winds...if we let them...And then "we" have to walk our way back to HIM...as HE never changed or moved away...EVER! AMEN!! Sincerely, hannah

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Ive recently read being and nothingness, and i find that free-will cannot be given by god, for the reason of this fact is that existence is contingent, if this is the case this would mean god is contingent on the alternative, but in this way god cannot be contingent and never-the-less is, thus god cannot exist. If you say though that god is not contingent then he can not exist because existence is a contingency. This idea of god as a self-cause or self-maker has been mentioned by these debates. If god causes himself, then he must stand at a distance from himself in this way it makes him a something of dependablity or i.e. contingent.