Coincidence?

[Sojourner<><]

What is "free will"? Reread my post. It only seems a delusion. Nothing is free. Your decisions are ultimately so based in contingency and happenstance and circumstance, how could you have chosen other than you did?

We can't go back in time and allow you to decide another way and see how that works out. That is a thought experiment that is as impossible as throwing a rock at the moon and actually hitting it.

Free will as normally defined makes no sense. Go ahead and try to give us a convincing definition if you think you can. LOL.

I don't intend to. "Free will" as it is commonly understood is an overused box that I don't want to get stuck in. I'm simply stating that there is an observable difference between an inanimate object that is subject to exterior cause, and the will that can act upon an exterior cause through understanding. There's obviously something special about thinking beings that separates them from nonthinking things.

 

[JGL53]

I don't intend to. "Free will" as it is commonly understood is an overused box that I don't want to get stuck in. I'm simply stating that there is an observable difference between an inanimate object that is subject to exterior cause, and the will that can act upon an exterior cause through understanding. There's obviously something special about thinking beings that separates them from nonthinking things.

Humans are obviously FAR, FAR more complicated than any other species. And life is FAR, FAR, more complicated than rocks. I will give you all that.

And what are we to infer from the above facts? That we are "special", that the universe owes the wonderful human species some respect for that? That there MUST be a (Super)Man behind the curtain, like us but an ideal us, that did it all, and loves us, and will make everything just hunky-dory one day, in the sweet bye-and-bye? That if you wish it so hard and long enough, then that will make it so?

Magical thinking - like I said, I think it is a bad thing, i.e., it will always, in the end, lead to a very dark, scary part of your mind, and leave you stranded there.

We only have one life that we are assured of - why not live it as rational beings? We seem to have the capacity for such - why throw it all away for a unsubstantiated promise and a egocentric wish-fulfillment fantansy?

Peace.

 

[HouseApe]

I see your point and this is something that I've thought about for a long time. Bottom line is there is no such thing as chance. Chance is only a method of predicting the outcome of an event where the underlying causes are not known. If all causes are known, then the effect can be determined precisely.

Does that mean that God has deliberately chosen each individual outcome no matter how seemingly insignificant it is? The question, I think, is invalid. An all-knowing, all-comprehending God should know what is going to happen around every corner. The question should instead be: since all things follow a path of cause and effect, does God choose to intervene and alter this path?

Some would argue that God doesn't take a day off to let His creation run its course as if it were some giant wound up cosmic clock. Yet scripture states that on the seventh day, God rested. That doesn't mean that He is still resting though. I think that He lets the universe run its course until He chooses otherwise.

If God is omniscient, and knows His own actions prior to taking them, then He is just a part of the path of cause and effect, and cannot intervene and alter that path. To do so you would have to assume that He made a choice to do so, but a choice by definition assumes a lack of omniscience.

 

[JGL53]

If God is omniscient, and knows His own actions prior to taking them, then He is just a part of the path of cause and effect, and cannot intervene and alter that path. To do so you would have to assume that He made a choice to do so, but a choice by definition assumes a lack of omniscience.

The concept of an omnipresent and all-knowing personal god is intrinsically self-contradictory. Anyone from a fool to a genius should understand that.

But what has sound logic to do with "faith"? Faith trumps all, since faith is wish, and wish trumps all.

Children want candy before supper. They want what they want when they want it. And they MUST get what they want, else tantrum or depression will follow like night follows day. You can't destroy a beautiful dream, my friend.

 

[DailyBlessings]

But what has sound logic to do with "faith"? Faith trumps all, since faith is wish, and wish trumps all.

Reality trumps wishes all the time. Did your parents always give you the cookie?

 

[JGL53]

Reality trumps wishes all the time. Did your parents always give you the cookie?

No. And the evidence that your invisible god will provide you with personal immortality and eternal bliss?

I see no evidence pointing to the existence of that particular cookie. At least my mother's homemade cookies were real - you could see'um, touch'um, taste'um and smell'um - unlike the leprachaun that lived in my basement - or so I thought at age four.

And your god - is it more cookie-ish - or leprachaunish?

 

[DailyBlessings]

No. And the evidence that your invisible god will provide you with personal immortality and eternal bliss?

I see no evidence pointing to the existence of that particular cookie. At least my mother's homemade cookies were real - you could see'um, touch'um, taste'um and smell'um - unlike the leprachaun that lived in my basement - or so I thought at age four.

And your god - is it more cookie-ish - or leprachaunish?

Cookie. That you have not touched or tasted the cookie is hardly evidence that I have not. To me, the universe is the cookie.

 

[JGL53]

Cookie. That you have not touched or tasted the cookie is hardly evidence that I have not. To me, the universe is the cookie.

The universe IS the cookie?

Sounds like pantheism to me. I can dig it.

 

[DailyBlessings]

The universe IS the cookie?

Sounds like pantheism to me. I can dig it.

Panentheism, but yeah.

 

[JGL53]

Panentheism, but yeah.

Panentheism is theism in sheeps clothing. Thus, we are back to the invisible Man Behind The Curtain. In other words, a magical anything goes world.

Pantheism - all is one, all is cool, problem solved.

 

[JohnLocke]

The concept of an omnipresent and all-knowing personal god is intrinsically self-contradictory. Anyone from a fool to a genius should understand that.

But what has sound logic to do with "faith"? Faith trumps all, since faith is wish, and wish trumps all.

Children want candy before supper. They want what they want when they want it. And they MUST get what they want, else tantrum or depression will follow like night follows day. You can't destroy a beautiful dream, my friend.

Uh, call me a fool, but I can't see how an all knowing and ever present God is essentially self-contradictory.

On the other hand Bibleblast, if you'd like I can argue the "no coincidence" argument, though we may very well have to delve a little more deeply into dimensional time, probability and chaos theory than is really healthy.

Cheers!

 

[JGL53]

JohnLocke quote: "Uh, call me a fool, but I can't see how an all knowing and ever present God is essentially self-contradictory."

You are right. The Brahman of the Hindus (Vedantists) is an all-knowing and ever present god that is NOT logically self-contradictory - ditto any other type of radical pantheistic ontology.

So, I stand corrected. Thanks.

But the specific personal god of western monotheism IS self-conradictory by definition.

 

[JohnLocke]

JGL53,

I'm still lost how you think all-knowing and ever present God, in the personal western monotheism sense is self-contradictory.

Honestly,

Because it seems to me, that ever present does not require pantheism. For example, I might call the law enforcement presence "omni-present" if there were a police officer stationed every 4 feet, granted the cops wouldn't occupy absolutely all space, but there really wouldn't be a place, in any realistic sense, where the cops were absence.

Applied to a personal god of western monotheism, I could see how one would argue that wherever one went there would be no place that was not accessible by said god, under observation by that same god, and thus there would no space would exist where one could hide from such a god, which for my practical mind would be sufficient presence to qualify as omni-present.

So where have I "gone off the reservation?"

Cheers!

 

[JGL53]

JGL53,

I'm still lost how you think all-knowing and ever present God, in the personal western monotheism sense is self-contradictory.

Honestly,

Because it seems to me, that ever present does not require pantheism. For example, I might call the law enforcement presence "omni-present" if there were a police officer stationed every 4 feet, granted the cops wouldn't occupy absolutely all space, but there really wouldn't be a place, in any realistic sense, where the cops were absence.

Applied to a personal god of western monotheism, I could see how one would argue that wherever one went there would be no place that was not accessible by said god, under observation by that same god, and thus there would no space would exist where one could hide from such a god, which for my practical mind would be sufficient presence to qualify as omni-present.

So where have I "gone off the reservation?"

Cheers!

I am well aware that language was invented by fallible humans, that words are just signs pointing to perceived reality, and are thus abstractions, with no &#8220;perfect&#8221; or divine meaning. Thus, when not speaking of trees or other observed objects, but of purely abstract concepts, I am conservative and go by dictionary definitions, otherwise we fall into an abyss of irrationality that is for all practical purposes bottomless. Dictionary definitions of &#8220;omnipresent&#8221; are all in agreement. Here are four variations I have found:

1. Being present everywhere at once
2. Present everywhere simultaneously
3. The quality of being everywhere
4. Present everywhere at the same time.

I see no room to parse words here. I&#8217;d don&#8217;t think a fifth variation on the definition will add a thing. It is crystal clear &#8211; &#8220;Omni&#8221; means all, &#8220;present&#8221; means present. There is no indication of a meaning that just knowing everything that exists or is present, as in observing it as fully as is logically possible, is what is being averred. God is not just a cosmic cop. To be omnipresent, as in have the quality of omnipresence, one must BE omnipresent. Essence/quality = Existence/Being. PERIOD.

To reiterate, how could one know all, totally and completely, unless one was completely one with all and completely non-separate from all? One smidgen of distance away from X and X cannot be fully known, as in experienced in full, but only observed from a distance. To know X from a distance, information from X would necessarily be transmitted somehow across space &#8211; and would the alleged omnipresent one KNOW that space, in it&#8217;s fullness? If so, then he would BE that space, not to mention X &#8211; not be IN the space or X, but BE them &#8211; Otherwise, god is something less than omnipresent - close maybe, but close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades &#8211; and cops, I suppose.

To know omnisciently and to be omnipotent, one must be omnipresent - the first two follow from the last.. Thus, if the personal god of western monotheism is both omniscient and omnipotent &#8211; as he is said to be &#8211; then he must be omnipresent in the actual definition of the word &#8220;omnipresent&#8221; &#8211; not some theologian&#8217;s twisting of logic to get what he wants. And, if omnipresent, then he can&#8217;t be separate and distinct, in the final analysis, from his creation.
Thus, .god cannot be both omnipresent AND a separate and distinct creator from his creation, as defined by western monotheism - if the creation is not him, he is not omnipresent - thus the obvious self-contradictory. Ultimate reality can be IDENTITY or it can be RELATIONSHIP - not both. If the former, no personal god separate and distinct from his creation. If the latter, no omnipresence.

I.e., both having your cake and eating it too is not allowed. LOL.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Thus, .god cannot be both omnipresent AND a separate and distinct creator from his creation, as defined by western monotheism - if the creation is not him, he is not omnipresent - thus the obvious self-contradictory. Ultimate reality can be IDENTITY or it can be RELATIONSHIP - not both. If the former, no personal god separate and distinct from his creation. If the latter, no omnipresence.

I.e., both having your cake and eating it too is not allowed. LOL.

So are you trying to say that since God is everywhere then He must be everything, therefore we shouldn't have to have some special relationship with Him?

 

[JGL53]

So are you trying to say that since God is everywhere then He must be everything, therefore we shouldn't have to have some special relationship with Him?

Correct. I see your special relationship with "him" as illusionary. You don't. That is why you are a Christian and I am not.

This would be analogous, to a great degree, to a person who believes in astrology, and believes the very stars themselves speak of his or her importance. I believe this to be illusionary. The true believer in astrology disagrees. Thus, that is why he or she is a believer in astrology and I am not (i.e., I'm an anastrologist.)

 

[Sojourner<><]

Correct. I see your special relationship with "him" as illusionary. You don't. That is why you are a Christian and I am not.

This would be analogous, to a great degree, to a person who believes in astrology, and believes the very stars themselves speak of his or her importance. I believe this to be illusionary. The true believer in astrology disagrees. Thus, that is why he or she is a believer in astrology and I am not (i.e., I'm an anastrologist.)

Wouldn't that depend on how you define relationship? If all things are God then we must be smaller than ants compared to him. If an ant were crawling on me, I suppose you could say that it has a relationship with me in a very small way. However, this kind of relationship is very different than the kind of relationship that a more sentient being can have with me. The ant probably doesn't even know I'm alive whereas an intelligent being might be able to both know me and have a conversation with me.

I'll agree with you on one point: the latter relationship that I described is optional.

 

[JGL53]

Wouldn't that depend on how you define relationship? If all things are God then we must be smaller than ants compared to him. If an ant were crawling on me, I suppose you could say that it has a relationship with me in a very small way. However, this kind of relationship is very different than the kind of relationship that a more sentient being can have with me. The ant probably doesn't even know I'm alive whereas an intelligent being might be able to both know me and have a conversation with me.

I'll agree with you on one point: the latter relationship that I described is optional.

Well, let's just say that a god could exist that would be separate and distinct from his creation - thus not omnipresent, thus a relationship with his created beings would be possible.

It would follow then that god could choose to have a relationship with some created beings and not others, the others being ignorant of or even positively disbelieving in this god's existence.

And it's possible that a god could exist that choses not to have a relationship with ANY of his created beings, for the same or similar reasons we humans don't have any "relationship" to speak of with ants we keep in an ant farm.

If you define god in a tenuous enough way, then agnosticism comes into play.

I suppose anything is possible. But as the old saying goes, anything is possible, but a lot of things aren't true. LOL.

 

[JohnLocke]

JGL53,

Can I call you JG? Anyway

Thanks for spelling out your thoughts on the omnipresent thing. I'm not sure that the term "present" requires all space to be occupied, nor am I totally convinced that knowledge at a distance necessarily implies some .. "non-knowledge." But I do appreciate your thoughts, and will consider them.

Cheers!

 

[JGL53]

JGL53,

Can I call you JG? Anyway

Thanks for spelling out your thoughts on the omnipresent thing. I'm not sure that the term "present" requires all space to be occupied, nor am I totally convinced that knowledge at a distance necessarily implies some .. "non-knowledge." But I do appreciate your thoughts, and will consider them.

Cheers!

Your welcome.

Yeah, its all apparently just speculation about the goofy abstractions that people have created in their spare time anyway, as far as I can tell. Some of these catch on and become "religions" and spread and mutate like viruses. Today we have over 20,000 varieties developed to choose from to help you with your daily reality denial. LOL.

As for self-contradictory religious theories, I still think we still have a moral problem with Christianity and similar theistic philosophies, i.e., the theodicy problem. The theologian who solves that one will go down in Christian history as second only to Jesus as a moral philosopher. So far we've only gotten rationalizations that shouldn't impress a precocious three year old.

But that's another thread, isn't it?