If I can find an answer to these questions, I will turn back to religion

[OceanL]

i would question if you were raised catholic, why you would believe that catholism was about strictly worshipping God, alone, and not about the ways we worship him, through our life with how we respect others,example, scripture tells us that by their fruits, i.e. how they, interract with others, kind vs, mean, loving, vs hateful, etc., in other words, we cant help but to observe others, as they do with observing us, and in how we interract speaks to others who might be drawn to us, or not, and likewise with our observance of others, therefore, to worship all human beings through our love of God, is what directly effects how much we love and follow God, or do not, i.e., love others as you would love yourself, the catholic way of life, but many people will interpret as you have with strictly worshipping God alone, hence, we show our worship through how we respect others, period, that is my interpretation according to the scriptures and the second comment of our not being responsible for our actions is not a part of any religious based teachings, albeit we are shaped through the references you mentioned, we are absolutely responsible for everything we say and do in accordance to God.
he did not make us robots, remember that, also, he holds every individual personally responsible for deliberate acts of sin, meaning what our will allowed us to do, otherwise, our choices would not be choices, which is not to imply people do not willfully fo against their own conscience, everyone has at some point in their lives, but does it continue, has it stopped, do we recognize what sin really is, a choice of our will, our decisions, etc., therefore, if one doesnt understand the basic concepts of their own consciences, and choices, they are not capable of opening their heart with which to bare the responsibilities of their actions, so that they know such and such is wrong in accord to their own conscience, without which, they are worshipping themselves as a god and not the God of the universe.
you cannot decide to turn back to religion without believing that each individual is responsible for their actions, since that is the tenets of all faiths, and is seperate from science and nature vs nurture, the will is an independent entity of what Gods word states that each person has been given the same amount of faith, if they realize that, but if they dont, and follow their ego, it will lead away from God, and harden the heart, and the ego wants to rule, making up excuses for not wanting to listen to the dictates of their own conscience.
read the sciptures with a sincere heart to be contrite, however, without a total change of actions that reflect the status of the hearts intentions, it is blasphemous, and the heart is deceiving to everyone, thats why actions as a product of the will confirm or show the deceit of true sorrow or just words without meaning.
good luck

 

[Sbee0]

The problem with pre determinism is that there can be no sense of morality and justice or responsibility. If I rob a bank I’m 100% a victim and not a perpetrator as my circumstances and outside factors all added up in a perfect storm to make me commit that crime. If someone saves soneone’s life why would they be praised - they are an automaton doing what fate programmed them to do. So it stands to reason there can be no sin as ultimately we are not responsible for anything that offends God. Scripture says something quite different than that.

The logical fallacy is in the popular notion that an all knowing omniscient God means we cannot have free will.

Statement: It’s a logical fact that if God knows I will put my brown shoes on today then I will put my brown shoes on today.

Fallacious Conclusion (Modal Fallacy): What God knows about what is to happen precludes free will. Therefore, I had no choice in the matter, it is a fact that I must put my brown shoes on and therefore I didn’t have the free will to say, choose a different colour.

 

[FredBloggs]

The problem with pre determinism is that there can be no sense of morality and justice or responsibility.

No, that’s not true, but if we dig into that our posts will quickly get bloated. Happy to take that up in a separate thread.

If I rob a bank I’m 100% a victim and not a perpetrator as my circumstances and outside factors all added up in a perfect storm to make me commit that crime. If someone saves soneone’s life why would they be praised - they are an automaton doing what fate programmed them to do.

I never said it wasn’t counter-intuitive. But intuition isn’t, in my view, a good enough reason to believe in something for which we have no evidence.

So it stands to reason there can be no sin as ultimately we are not responsible for anything that offends God. Scripture says something quite different than that.

Ok, well if you hadn’t already guessed, I’m not bound by the strictures of scripture

The logical fallacy is in the popular notion that an all knowing omniscient God means we cannot have free will.

Statement: It’s a logical fact that if God knows I will put my brown shoes on today then I will put my brown shoes on today.

Fallacious Conclusion (Modal Fallacy): What God knows about what is to happen precludes free will. Therefore, I had no choice in the matter, it is a fact that I must put my brown shoes on and therefore I didn’t have the free will to say, choose a different colour.

So if God knows you’re going to put your brown shoes on today, you still might not? Or are you saying that God knows what you’re going to do before you choose to do it? How does that work? Could he (I assume you consider God a “he”) stop you making that free choice? Is he omnipotent?

 

[FredBloggs]

So your post (and all of your beliefs) are not rational, logical, or intentional, and neither is my response or my beliefs.

How did you jump to that conclusion?

I’d chastise you for trying to convince us, in such circumstances, but then again, you haven’t tried anything.

What would you have me try?

The intentionality and information content of thought (or lack thereof as you seem to be arguing… or rather, as a series of chemical events triggers another series of events causes black dots to appear on a white lit background devoid of any intention, informational content, or reason) would be an interesting avenue for discussion on how the qualitative aspects of the mind cannot boil down to purely quantitative, material processes.

Well that’s just a straw man argument. I never said nor implied that nothing coherent comes from these processes. That’s your misrepresentation, and you’ll have to own it. But you’re right, it would be an interesting discussion.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

FredBloggs:

Sbee0:

The anti free will argument that God’s knowledge of our choices means they must inevitably happen is a common argument and it’s also logically fallacious.

I’m not aware of this argument. Is it possible you are conflating two arguments here? Firstly the one that states that if “God” knows we are going to commit an evil action and does nothing to prevent it, that precludes him from being a loving and caring god. That’s not anti free will, that’s an argument against “God” being both all-knowing and good. The only way out of that conclusion is to invoke special pleading.

No, not at all. Maybe you’re just working with a bad/incomplete understanding of goodness and also a bad/incomplete understanding of what we mean by God.

Well instead of just asserting that I lack understanding, perhaps you can explain. Are you saying you would knowingly stand by while your child murdered an innocent? And that you’d still consider yourself a good and moral person?

Or are you saying that your God is somehow exempt from such obligations? Or that “goodness” means something else when it comes to your God. Or is it that your God simply doesn’t have the power to change these outcomes?

You made a claim that special pleading is involved without elaborating. My experience with most atheists is they’re quick with skepticism of everyone else but slow to feel like they have to defend their own claims or definitions. I fail to see any special pleading. Perhaps you could explain your understanding of goodness and help me see where any special pleading (and I know what special pleading is) comes into play.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

So your post (and all of your beliefs) are not rational, logical, or intentional, and neither is my response or my beliefs.

How did you jump to that conclusion?

How could it not be true as the logical conclusion to “Our decisions are what our brains do. Our brains are purely physical entities undergoing physical (chemical) processes. We have zero evidence that anything else is going on. Based on what we know, the reasonable conclusion is that our brains perform those processes based purely on physical (ie deterministic) (name removed by moderator)uts. Internal chemical reactions influenced by external stimuli. All deterministic, physical, material. Experiments have suggested that our brains make decisions sometimes several seconds before we’re aware of them.”

I’d chastise you for trying to convince us, in such circumstances, but then again, you haven’t tried anything.

What would you have me try?

No, it’s that your mechanistic, deterministic universe would be devoid of any such thing as “trying” or any intentionality loaded concepts. It’s simply deterministic chemical reactions.

The intentionality and information content of thought (or lack thereof as you seem to be arguing… or rather, as a series of chemical events triggers another series of events causes black dots to appear on a white lit background devoid of any intention, informational content, or reason) would be an interesting avenue for discussion on how the qualitative aspects of the mind cannot boil down to purely quantitative, material processes.

Well that’s just a straw man argument. I never said nor implied that nothing coherent comes from these processes. That’s your misrepresentation, and you’ll have to own it. But you’re right, it would be an interesting discussion.

Whether or not it’s a straw man we can leave to a later topic. I fail to see how any intentionality could exist in a world you describe. As in, it’s simply incompatible with the idea of intentionality.

 

[FredBloggs]

FredBloggs:

I disagree. “It sure feels like I have free will” is not good enough.

“It sure feels like I’m thinking” or “it sure feels like I’m seeing that tree” are good enough, aren’t they? And if so, then why not “it sure feels like I have free will”?

Well, you can walk up to that tree and see whether it hurts when you walk into it. You can ask other people whether they see it too. A tree exists for everybody.

To take your contention to its natural conclusion, some people feel convinced that they can fly. Then they jump off a building, and it turns out that “it sure feels like…” is suddenly woefully inadequate. Some people believe they are Jesus reincarnate. Do you believe that they are?

If you’re not going to base your beliefs on what can be tested empirically, then in all probability, no harm done. That doesn’t make the belief correct, or substantive.

Our decisions are what our brains do. Our brains are purely physical entities undergoing physical (chemical) processes. We have zero evidence that anything else is going on.

I would disagree – the evidence we have are the perceptions we experience, and the thoughts we have. They are not physical entities themselves! So… from whence do they proceed? The experience itself is the evidence you claim doesn’t exist! The very thought processes you used in order to compose your post is that evidence!

And those perceptions are not reliable, as we have seen proven hundreds of times. Perceptions can be altered by drugs or other stimulus. And the fact that I have posted what I’ve posted doesn’t prove I have free will - it proves that my brain + stimuli have prompted me to write what I’ve written. Nothing more.

 

[Wesrock]

If you’re not going to base your beliefs on what can be tested empirically, then in all probability, no harm done. That doesn’t make the belief correct, or substantive.

Is this something you believe?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The intellectual , the thinking, the reasoning, the collection and determination of facts, the head, the intellect.

That great hebrew prayer, the Shema (Deut 6:4-9, Lev 19:8 )

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

Love, in the heart.
I am not talking about the contemporary appropriation of the word ‘feelings’
in some cultures. Feelings does not equal emotions. Yes love is an emotion and a feeling, but it is so much more than the human definition of a feeling or emotion.

to say we cannot feel God, we cannot have feelings for God, is this saying we cannot feel love for God.

I am talking about feeling Love for God and of God for us, in the heart. as in the Shema

 

[FredBloggs]

You made a claim that special pleading is involved without elaborating. My experience with most atheists is they’re quick with skepticism of everyone else but slow to feel like they have to defend their own claims or definitions. I fail to see any special pleading. Perhaps you could explain your understanding of goodness and help me see where any special pleading (and I know what special pleading is) comes into play.

Ok, I’ll elaborate. If someone makes the claim that what we consider good and bad in humans doesn’t apply to God, then you need to show why. If you can’t, then it’s special pleading. You can’t just say “it’s different for God because he’s God.” If what we know as good and bad is different from what God abides by, does that mean we’ve got it wrong? Or is he the “do as I say, not as I do” type? And so on?

My definition of goodness, like anybody’s, would be too long to write down. It is, by necessity, defined by examples rather than a comprehensive list of what is good and bad. And in the margins, it would likely be contested by those with different worldviews.

But the example I gave - of allowing your child to murder an innocent, is a good example. I believe - and you may disagree - that if I allowed my child to murder an innocent person, and could intervene but didn’t, that would make me a bad person. If you assume that we are all God’s children, and that if he has knowledge of someone about to murder an innocent, and the power to prevent that; yet does nothing, then by the same yardstick that would make God a bad’un. Do you agree with that?

I can’t help with your experience (or perception) of atheists I’m afraid. I don’t consider skepticism a negative trait as long as it’s accompanied by a willingness to be open to new evidence.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

You made a claim that special pleading is involved without elaborating. My experience with most atheists is they’re quick with skepticism of everyone else but slow to feel like they have to defend their own claims or definitions. I fail to see any special pleading. Perhaps you could explain your understanding of goodness and help me see where any special pleading (and I know what special pleading is) comes into play.

Ok, I’ll elaborate. If someone makes the claim that what we consider good and bad in humans doesn’t apply to God, then you need to show why. If you can’t, then it’s special pleading. You can’t just say “it’s different for God because he’s God.” If what we know as good and bad is different from what God abides by, does that mean we’ve got it wrong? Or is he the “do as I say, not as I do” type? And so on?

But why should it apply to God (or even to all people)? Explain this to me. You’re basically assuming a position that goodness is a Platonic Form some other type of realist position. Am I wrong? And if I am, why? What is your position here?

My definition of goodness, like anybody’s, would be too long to write down.

And yet this is basically what you would like me to do. Surely you can tie the idea of goodness together in some way. Maybe examples will help, but I don’t think (and I don’t suspect you think) it’s such an adhoc thing that every case of goodness and badness is unique in the sense that there’s no common thread we can follow.

 

[FredBloggs]

FredBloggs:

Wesrock:

So your post (and all of your beliefs) are not rational, logical, or intentional, and neither is my response or my beliefs.

How did you jump to that conclusion?

How could it not be true as the logical conclusion to “Our decisions are what our brains do. Our brains are purely physical entities undergoing physical (chemical) processes. We have zero evidence that anything else is going on. Based on what we know, the reasonable conclusion is that our brains perform those processes based purely on physical (ie deterministic) (name removed by moderator)uts. Internal chemical reactions influenced by external stimuli. All deterministic, physical, material. Experiments have suggested that our brains make decisions sometimes several seconds before we’re aware of them.”

None of which precludes logic or intelligence.

I’d chastise you for trying to convince us, in such circumstances, but then again, you haven’t tried anything.

What would you have me try?

No, it’s that your mechanistic, deterministic universe would be devoid of any such thing as “trying” or any intentionality loaded concepts. It’s simply deterministic chemical reactions.

Ah ok, gotcha now. However I wonder if you’re taking the word “deterministic” to mean that we’re all just robots, automatons. Which I neither said nor implied.

The intentionality and information content of thought (or lack thereof as you seem to be arguing… or rather, as a series of chemical events triggers another series of events causes black dots to appear on a white lit background devoid of any intention, informational content, or reason) would be an interesting avenue for discussion on how the qualitative aspects of the mind cannot boil down to purely quantitative, material processes.

Well that’s just a straw man argument. I never said nor implied that nothing coherent comes from these processes. That’s your misrepresentation, and you’ll have to own it. But you’re right, it would be an interesting discussion.

Whether or not it’s a straw man we can leave to a later topic. I fail to see how any intentionality could exist in a world you describe. As in, it’s simply incompatible with the idea of intentionality.

Hmmm. Okay, if you don’t want to defend your previous statement then that’s fine by me. And if you contend that “intentionality” is dependent on free will then I completely understand why you think it’s not compatible.

Anyway, it’s nearly 1am here so I’m off to bed.

 

[joeybaggz]

One. I think from a Father’s POV the greatest worship (love) a son or daughter can show is to use the talents and gifts given to it to enjoy this world, to maximize the talents and gifts given, and to look to share those talents and gifts with others. Christ often said that it was this quality of giving of one’s self to others that is what is “rewarded” by the Father. God (Christ) encourages us to look outward; Satan deceives us to always look inward.
Two. Ford Motors builds the Mustang. It is a fine machine. If used improperly by the driver by his/her own choice and it wrecks another and causes injury or death, is it Ford’s responsibility?
Your OP seems to indicate you believe people to be nothing more than robots. Think you have seriously wandered off the reservation there.

 

[FredBloggs]

FredBloggs:

Wesrock:

You made a claim that special pleading is involved without elaborating. My experience with most atheists is they’re quick with skepticism of everyone else but slow to feel like they have to defend their own claims or definitions. I fail to see any special pleading. Perhaps you could explain your understanding of goodness and help me see where any special pleading (and I know what special pleading is) comes into play.

Ok, I’ll elaborate. If someone makes the claim that what we consider good and bad in humans doesn’t apply to God, then you need to show why. If you can’t, then it’s special pleading. You can’t just say “it’s different for God because he’s God.” If what we know as good and bad is different from what God abides by, does that mean we’ve got it wrong? Or is he the “do as I say, not as I do” type? And so on?

But why should it apply to God (or even to all people)? Explain this to me. You’re basically assuming a position that goodness is a Platonic Form some other type of realist position. Am I wrong? And if I am, why? What is your position here?

I think that’s the crux. If one believes that it’s okay for some people to murder with impunity but not others, then that needs to be resolved before we can start to hold God accountable. But you make a fair point: morality - what’s good and what’s bad - is not objective and universal. It’s defined by society, and societies evolve. You’re about the only theist I’ve ever talked to that appears not to believe that morals are timeless and unchanging and laid down by God!

My definition of goodness, like anybody’s, would be too long to write down.

And yet this is basically what you would like me to do. Surely you can tie the idea of goodness together in some way. Maybe examples will help, but I don’t think (and I don’t suspect you think) it’s such an adhoc thing that every case of goodness and badness is unique in the sense that there’s no common thread we can follow.

I’m not asking you to do anything of the sort. I’m simply pointing out that if one has an idea of what’s right and wrong, yet believes that God doesn’t need to hold to those same principles because he’s God, then that amounts to special pleading.

I don’t think you need to define goodness before you can decide whether God gets a free pass. Examples are more than adequate for that. You just need to ask, for a minimum of one example: “does that rule apply to me but not to God?”

I’m tired and I’ve run out of wine. I’ll pick this up tomorrow. Cheers!

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

FredBloggs:

Ok, I’ll elaborate. If someone makes the claim that what we consider good and bad in humans doesn’t apply to God, then you need to show why. If you can’t, then it’s special pleading. You can’t just say “it’s different for God because he’s God.” If what we know as good and bad is different from what God abides by, does that mean we’ve got it wrong? Or is he the “do as I say, not as I do” type? And so on?

But why should it apply to God (or even to all people)? Explain this to me. You’re basically assuming a position that goodness is a Platonic Form some other type of realist position. Am I wrong? And if I am, why? What is your position here?

I think that’s the crux. If one believes that it’s okay for some people to murder with impunity but not others, then that needs to be resolved before we can start to hold God accountable. But you make a fair point: morality - what’s good and what’s bad - is not objective and universal. It’s defined by society, and societies evolve. You’re about the only theist I’ve ever talked to that appears not to believe that morals are timeless and unchanging and laid down by God!

I do believe goodness is a universal, but not in the same way you would seem to understand that position.

And yet this is basically what you would like me to do. Surely you can tie the idea of goodness together in some way. Maybe examples will help, but I don’t think (and I don’t suspect you think) it’s such an adhoc thing that every case of goodness and badness is unique in the sense that there’s no common thread we can follow.

I’m not asking you to do anything of the sort. I’m simply pointing out that if one has an idea of what’s right and wrong, yet believes that God doesn’t need to hold to those same principles because he’s God, then that amounts to special pleading.

I don’t think you need to define goodness before you can decide whether God gets a free pass. Examples are more than adequate for that. You just need to ask, for a minimum of one example: “does that rule apply to me but not to God?”

Is it special pleading to say that what it means to be a good human being doesn’t apply to a good triangle? Or that while it is a bad human who does not care for its own young, types of fish that do not do the same for their own young aren’t therefore bad fish? There’s no special pleading in either example, we’re just avoiding absurd claims of a particular level of universality.

So really, you are operating on some premise of goodness that is informing your logic in thinking it’s special pleading, and I’d like to examine what exactly that is.

 

[LilyM]

God is not subject to all of the same constraints as creatures, no.

Just as adults aren’t subject to all the same restrictions as children. Children have to go to bed earlier. Children can’t drive, smoke, drink alcohol, marry, vote etc.

Children are subject to all these restrictions because physically, mentally and emotionally they aren’t as developed and able to cope with certain things.

So it is with God. His every capacity is infinitely greater than those of us humans.

Certain people within society- doctors, policemen, Presidents - have powers and privileges that others don’t Some come as a result of greater knowledge and expertise. My doctor knows more than Joe Public about treating me if I injure my spine. The President knows more than Joe Public about whether it is worth having US military in Syria.

God knows more than all of us put together about everything … including an appropriate response to evil and whether or not we really have freewill.

 

[FreeMe]

I don’t think God exists.

What makes you think God doesn’t exist.

No one is saying “God made creation because He was lonely” or “God made creation because He felt incomplete”!

I believe God felt lonely. Thus, He created the entire universe from His own radiant.

 

[Reuben_J]

We do not know about God except that He is love. Any other attributes to a Him may be faulty.

 

[FredBloggs]

Is it special pleading to say that what it means to be a good human being doesn’t apply to a good triangle? Or that while it is a bad human who does not care for its own young, types of fish that do not do the same for their own young aren’t therefore bad fish? There’s no special pleading in either example, we’re just avoiding absurd claims of a particular level of universality.

Sorry, but that’s not a valid argument, unless you’re claiming that God has the mental and physical capacity of a fish or a triangle. You’re right about one thing, the comparison is absurd. I can tell you exactly why a triangle wouldn’t intervene if another triangle were about to murder someone. I can tell you exactly why a fish wouldn’t intervene if another fish were about to gun down a child.

I presume you think that God is vastly more intelligent, empathetic, powerful etc. than humans. So it really does feel like you’re saying “God isn’t bound by our ideals of goodness, because he’s God.” Which is special pleading, like it or not.

So really, you are operating on some premise of goodness that is informing your logic in thinking it’s special pleading, and I’d like to examine what exactly that is.

I think you’re trying to obfuscate the issue here. My question is very simple: if we are compelled to act to prevent our children performing harm to others, and we consider that a good act - why isn’t God compelled in the same way? Trying to pick apart what I think “goodness” is, is simply avoiding answering the question. Which, with respect, is what happens every time a Christian is confronted with the question of why an all-powerful God fails to protect innocent people.

Is God good? Is he all-knowing? Is he all-powerful? Could he stop someone committing an act of evil? If the answer to those four questions is “Yes,” then why doesn’t he prevent these evil acts, the same way your or I would?

 

[FredBloggs]

God is not subject to all of the same constraints as creatures, no.

Just as adults aren’t subject to all the same restrictions as children. Children have to go to bed earlier. Children can’t drive, smoke, drink alcohol, marry, vote etc.

Children are subject to all these restrictions because physically, mentally and emotionally they aren’t as developed and able to cope with certain things.

So it is with God. His every capacity is infinitely greater than those of us humans.

Certain people within society- doctors, policemen, Presidents - have powers and privileges that others don’t Some come as a result of greater knowledge and expertise. My doctor knows more than Joe Public about treating me if I injure my spine. The President knows more than Joe Public about whether it is worth having US military in Syria.

God knows more than all of us put together about everything … including an appropriate response to evil and whether or not we really have freewill.

This is a perfect example of special pleading.