A God That Makes Sense?

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:

there would still be plenty of people who would deny it. Look at how some denialists treat evolution, vaccines, the moon landings, the fact that the earth orbits the sun, the age of the universe, etc.

Free will is not group option. Free will applies only to an individual. I said it would eliminate your free will.

Assuming I had free will. It would not eliminate my free will, if it existed. I would still be able to engage in denialism, as religious folk tend and other wingnuts to do with regards to the things I mentioned. Your hypothetical reveals nothing.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

True free will would not be possible with hard evidence.

Hard evidence of God--or anything else--does not make free will impossible; it simply causes a change to your will.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Assuming I had free will. It would not eliminate my free will, if it existed. I would still be able to engage in denialism, as religious folk tend and other wingnuts to do with regards to the things I mentioned. Your hypothetical reveals nothing.

So you would gain back your free will at the cost of your integrity.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
"If God gave you life, any 'hard' evidence would have to be internal."

FBM asked:
Why?

Leadfoot answered:
Explained previously but the short version is:
True free will would not be possible with hard evidence.

Frank asked:
WHY????

Really? Nothing occurs to either of you? Seriously, I would like to know your thoughts after you read my answer.

Think about how it would affect your entire frame of reference if you knew with absolute certainty that there was a God observing you, possibly with the intent of making a life or death decision on your continued existence. Say that from time to time there were physical manifestations of his presence, voices from the sky or bona fide miracles performed in such a way that there was no denying his reality. Or something like the monolith found on the moon in "2001 A Space Odessey." Just examples, substitute whatever it is that would constitute proof to you. If such a thing we're here, do you really think it would not affect your decisions and thinking? Would you still feel free to crack jokes about delusional believers being 'saved' from reality?

Leadfoot...if I knew with absolute certainty there is a GOD...

...I would still have as much free will as I have right now (if I have any).

How would knowing definitively that a GOD exists...impact on my "free will?"

If you are saying that it might influence how I exercise my free will...that is another thing. But even then, I would call attention to the fact that there are people ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED there IS a god...who still exercise their free will in a way contrary to the supposed wishes of the god.

Respectfully, the "free will" argument is a non-starter...more an attempt at rationalization than an actual argument on the issue being discussed.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:

there would still be plenty of people who would deny it. Look at how some denialists treat evolution, vaccines, the moon landings, the fact that the earth orbits the sun, the age of the universe, etc.

Free will is not group option. Free will applies only to an individual. I said it would eliminate your free will.

At very best...it MIGHT limit how a person used the "free will"...but there is absolutely no way it would eliminate it.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Assuming I had free will. It would not eliminate my free will, if it existed. I would still be able to engage in denialism, as religious folk tend and other wingnuts to do with regards to the things I mentioned. Your hypothetical reveals nothing.

So you would gain back your free will at the cost of your integrity.

You persist in assuming that there is such a thing as free will. In any event, denialists don't self-identify as denialists; they think they're the ones with the ultimate, hidden truths behind everything, despite what evidence suggests. Which is why I lump theists into the same category.

For example, do you categorize yourself as a denialist? Did you consciously exercise your free will to choose denialism over the scientific worldview? Or are you simply using denialist tactics to forward your favorite, feel-good hypothesis, convinced that you know reality better than the overwhelming majority of scientists? Have you sacrificed your integrity, or are you genuinely convinced that you're somehow right?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

You persist in assuming that there is such a thing as free will. In any event, denialists don't self-identify as denialists; they think they're the ones with the ultimate, hidden truths behind everything, despite what evidence suggests. Which is why I lump theists into the same category.

For example, do you categorize yourself as a denialist? Did you consciously exercise your free will to choose denialism over the scientific worldview? Or are you simply using denialist tactics to forward your favorite, feel-good hypothesis, convinced that you know reality better than the overwhelming majority of scientists? Have you sacrificed your integrity, or are you genuinely convinced that you're somehow right?

You may change the subject to 'do we have free will' later but for now I'd like to stay on the same subject. As Frank has aptly pointed out, science has not proved or even claimed to prove that there is no God so no, I am not a science denier. I could be wrong in my belief, but it is not because I don't have free will. And since there is no 'hard' proof of God, you also have yours.

It is one thing to believe something on the basis of circumstantial or incomplete evidence but it is not a lack of integrity. It is a completely different matter to deny something in the face of absolute proof. That is denialism and giving up your integrity as a reasoning being. A God that makes sense would not have you give up free will or integrity.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You brought up free will.

Not a science denier? How do you feel about the Standard Model of cosmology, which is all but universally accepted among physicists and says that there is nothing in the empirical data to necessitate nor suggest a divine creator? How do you feel about the most recent experiments on abiogenesis which strongly suggest that the emergence of life forms does not require nor suggest a divine creator?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

At very best...it MIGHT limit how a person used the "free will"...but there is absolutely no way it would eliminate it.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

i did not say it eliminated all free will. I have used the term 'complete or perfect free will' to distinguish it from the complete lack of free will that some scientists are trying to claim, and you (and FBM) hint that you agree with.
Are you trying to have it both ways?

Free will in its essence is completely a mental or inner state and is only secondarily related to acting on it. If you knew with certainty there was a God, the inner state of not accepting that truth could only be attained at the cost of your internal integrity. It puts you in the position of having an unresolvable inner conflict. A God that made sense would not do that. Hence: No hard proof.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
You brought up free will.

Yes I did. Your point?

Quote:

Not a science denier? How do you feel about the Standard Model of cosmology, which is all but universally accepted among physicists and says that there is nothing in the empirical data to necessitate nor suggest a divine creator? How do you feel about the most recent experiments on abiogenesis which strongly suggest that the emergence of life forms does not require nor suggest a divine creator?

If what you mean is the Standard Model in Physics then yes I do. That model makes no mention of who designed the model. But if you are including the sort of speculation espoused by Hawking (universe from nothing) then no, I don't, nor is that "universally accepted among physicists". You will have to specify the abiogenesis experiment you refer to if I am to give an opinion.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
@Leadfoot,
You brought up free will.

Yes I did. Your point?

Quote:

You may change the subject to 'do we have free will' later but for now I'd like to stay on the same subject.

Quote:

Quote:
Not a science denier? How do you feel about the Standard Model of cosmology, which is all but universally accepted among physicists and says that there is nothing in the empirical data to necessitate nor suggest a divine creator? How do you feel about the most recent experiments on abiogenesis which strongly suggest that the emergence of life forms does not require nor suggest a divine creator?

If what you mean is the Standard Model in Physics then yes I do. That model makes no mention of who designed the model. But if you are including the sort of speculation espoused by Hawking (universe from nothing) then no, I don't, nor is that "universally accepted among physicists".

"Not a science denier? How do you feel about..."

Neither of these is a yes/no question. Please clarify your answer.

Quote:

You will have to specify the abiogenesis experiment you refer to if I am to give an opinion.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/3/657.abstract

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html#ajTabs

2 Replies

@FBM,

The subject of 'do we have free will' (some scientists and philosophers say no) is an entirely different field of inquiry than 'would proof eliminate perfect free will'. The latter assumes that we do have it.

[FBM quote]
"Not a science denier? How do you feel about..."

Neither of these is a yes/no question. Please clarify your answer.
[/quote]

Sorry, im so used to people insisting that feelings have no place in these discussions that I habitually try to stay factual. Thank you for asking.

I feel that the Standard Model is a part of God's design for this temporary environment created to run this experiment in. It is awesomely well conceived, consistent and perfectly suited for the purpose. Same goes for evolution. Overall, the universe is as perfectly designed for plausible deniability (of God's existence) as is possible, given that the test subjects are sentient beings.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

...I habitually try to stay factual.

Please try harder. To wit, bacteria are much larger than the molecules that comprise them, DNA and RNA have different functions, etc. I recommend fact-checking before posting. I habitually do so in order to keep my foot out of my mouth.

Quote:

I feel that the Standard Model is a part of God's design for this temporary environment created to run this experiment in. It is awesomely well conceived, consistent and perfectly suited for the purpose. Same goes for evolution. Overall, the universe is as perfectly designed for plausible deniability (of God's existence) as is possible, given that the test subjects are sentient beings.

And nothing in the Standard Model of cosmology nor evolution requires nor points to a divine creator, so all you have is your feeling, I guess. Which goes back to the denialist's certainty that s/he has some special knowledge of the universe that others don't have. What makes your feeling about your god better than others' feelings about theirs, or there being none at all? Feelings don't amount to much. You seem to have an honest delusion, but a delusion nonetheless, unless you have evidence. And we've been over that.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

And nothing in the Standard Model of cosmology nor evolution requires nor points to a divine creator, so all you have is your feeling, I guess. Which goes back to the denialist's certainty that s/he has some special knowledge of the universe that others don't have. What makes your feeling about your god better than others' feelings about theirs, or there being none at all? Feelings don't amount to much. You seem to have an honest delusion, but a delusion nonetheless, unless you have evidence. And we've been over that.

So we do agree that whether by chance or design, the universe is such that the decision is left open to all.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

So you would gain back your free will at the cost of your integrity.

When I was very young, I knew that the moon was bigger than a star. It was obvious at a glance. After it was proven to me that I was wrong, my freewill remained intact. Acknowledging reality neither eliminates nor lessens freewill. If learning something new, or having our assumptions proven wrong, removes our free will, then free will has never existed for anyone.

If there was absolute proof that God exists and is watching our every move and thought, we have the freewill to try to please her, or, to condemn her as a peeping tom. You have the freewill to believe that God not only exists, but that she is also watching you and keeping a record of your thoughts and activities for the purpose of future judgement. Others have the freewill to determine that that does not make sense.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

So we do agree that whether by chance or design, the universe is such that the decision is left open to all.

That's an ambiguous statement. Please clarify.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

You have the freewill to believe that God not only exists, but that she is also watching you and keeping a record of your thoughts and activities for the purpose of future judgement. Others have the freewill to determine that that does not make sense.

This really is not that hard a concept to follow.

Your contention that we have free will to decide if God exists or not is true under current conditions. It would NOT be the case if you were presented with absolute proof, not if you were a person who insists that things make sense. If you deny something when presented with absolute proof of its reality, you are not making sense.

Wish this site had the ability to generate polls like some other sites. I would love to know the percentage of people who cannot follow this simple thought experiment.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

This really is not that hard a concept to follow.

Indeed!

You are equating denial of a proven fact to a loss of free will, which is not correct. If there were absolute proof of God, and someone chooses to ignore it, they are exercising their freewill to pretend it isn’t so. Conversely, if there is no proof of the existence of God, and you choose to believe it her anyway, you are exercising your freewill to believe that proof isn’t necessary. Some would call such a position an exercise in denial, but at any rate, freewill remains as potent as ever.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

"So we do agree that whether by chance or design, the universe is such that the decision is left open to all. "

That's an ambiguous statement. Please clarify.

I was relying on the context of this discussion to make it unnecessary to repeat every term, definition and context in every post. Below is the expanded quote including those things. We're there other terms there that were ambiguous to you?

"So we do agree that whether by chance (the result of unguided natural causes/forces of nature) or design (the result of an intelligent creator conceiving and executing it's construction), the universe is such that the decision (about which of these alternatives is true) is left open (not predetermined by hard evidence) to all (believers, atheists and those who have not or cannot decide on the basis of evidence)."

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

If there were absolute proof of God, and someone chooses to ignore it, they are exercising their freewill to pretend it isn’t so.

No, that denies you the right to free will AND maintain your integrity as a rational being (I.e., make sense). I choose to keep both and under the current conditions, I (and you) am free to do that. With absolute proof, there would only be one choice that makes sense.

1 Reply

A God That Makes Sense?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know