Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by BibleStudent on Today at 03:14:54 PM »
Heh, Biblestudent, where did I mention free will? I didn't!

I offered my comments on free will as an alternate consideration as to why our cognition comes from an external source rather than evolution.

Quote
My argument is about the fact that no god, such as YHWH, appears to have a physical effect in the world. Ps 39 is an illustration of this. The thing is that we cannot claim a supernatural source for anything without showing a supernatural  being exists to exercise anything. The evidence for the supernatural, never mind gods, is precisely zero!
Show us a god we might agree with the argument but as we stand now, the only possible thing to have produced our minds is evolution but if you can show any other explanation, with evidence, I would be delighted.

Can you explain what you infer from Psalms 39 that illustrates YHWH does not affect the physical worls?

As for your "precisely zero" comment, here is your challenge, Wheels:

any and all Atheists are invited to produce logic and or evidence which disproves the deduction that the initiation of a one-off event which has rules governing the event in most if not all of its existential aspects, and which event results in a previously non-existing universe coming into existence and including the possibility of the development of intelligence, agency, consciousness despite the overarching rule of constant decay (entropy), requires 1) power; 2) intent/agency; 3) intellect."
(I borrowed this from here: http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/03/discussion-zone-for-atheism.html)

2
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by Jstwebbrowsing on Today at 03:10:56 PM »
I can confidently claim there is no Santa, and if pressed I could prove it.

I am incredibly interested in this.  If not this thread, Jstwebbrowsing, perhaps you could spawn a new thread supplying this proof?

Also, Jstwebbrowsing, I hope you didn't miss this.

This is proving a negative.  See wiki on the subject.

If Santa is real then certain other things would be true, like mysterious gifts on Christmas and a home at the north pole.  These things are not true therefore it is possible to prove this negative.  It is falsifiable.  Santa does not exist.

To prove the negative in the case of God's existence you must be able to do the same.  You have to able to make predictions on what evidence will be present if your hypothesis is correct.  You then test for that evidence.

You must answer the question "If God is real then X will be evident".  You then test for X.     
3
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by BibleStudent on Today at 02:52:05 PM »
I see that you agree that thinking about thinking prevents you from being a puppet of evolution, which refutes Plantinga who thinks that behaviour causes belief directly.

No. You are misrepresenting what Plantinga has said. Go back and listen to the video and write down verbatim where he said what you think he said and also let me know at what time in the video he said it.

Quote
btw the way, I hate to say that I explained how this can be accounted for by freedom of method, which is a form of thinking about thinking only a few posts ago on this thread. You have a habit of repeating rubbish and not reading carefully.

Yes, you keep talking about conscious method and freedom of method but I have yet to see any scientific evidence for these. In fact, I asked for this evidence in post #590 when you mentioned conscious method. I’m not going to believe what you claim just because you said it. Like any other member of the forum, if your going to make a claim then you should provide the evidence for it.
4
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by BibleStudent on Today at 02:36:50 PM »
Quote
You have indicated that evolution does not produce beliefs and that culture and words do. I will not disagree with this
Since you accept that culture and words produce beliefs, you are contradicting Plantinga since Plantinga thinks that behaviour produces beliefs. You are talking about different parts of the brain which evolved for different functions. Belief about a behaviour uses a different part of the brain from behaviour itself and need not even understand that behaviour. The parts of the brain which evolved to deal with conscious rational thought and language evolved for the purpose of rational thought and language and have evolved to be reliable.

This not what Plantinga says. He said that neurology produces beliefs and neurology produces behavior. He did not say that behavior produces beliefs. He then goes on to say:

“Natural selection is interested in adaptive behavior and adaptive causes of behavior, say, neurology.... it doesn’t give a hoot whether your beliefs are true or false. You can believe whatever you want as long as you behave in the right way.”

That means he might agree with the part of your above post that I bolded.

Quote
Quote
A region of the human brain that scientists believe is critical to human intellectual abilities surprisingly functions much like a digital computer.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061005222628.htm
I’m sorry…could you please explain how the link pertains to whether a belief in naturalism is irrational or not?

Quote
Also beliefs are not treated in the brain the same way as rational thoughts. Beliefs have an emotional component. A certain part of the brain lights up during a brain scan when you talk about yourself and another part lights up when you talk about someone else. When you talk about gods, the part of your brain which you use, is the same one you use for yourself, not the part you use for other people. As we know from statements of theists, these theists are only projecting their own views onto gods, so it is no surprise that talking about gods uses the same part of the brain as talking about yourself.

Okay. So, there is something going on in the brain…a reactionary process created by evolution. This is what I have been trying to get you to see and understand. Belief can arise from culture and words but that doesn’t get you very far if the brain does not process that input. And if the evolutionary process is not filtering out beliefs based on whether they are true or not then the result is a lack of confidence in knowing that what we believe is true...and thus belief in naturalism is irrational.

Quote
Religious people tend to use their own beliefs as a guide in thinking about what God believes, but are less constrained when reasoning about other people's beliefs

The data demonstrated that reasoning about God's beliefs activated many of the same regions that become active when people reasoned about their own beliefs.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091130151321.htm

It has been established that religious beliefs exist. I do not disagree with that. However, I fail to see how what you have offered here pertains to whether naturalism is an irrational belief or not. How does this contribute to your contentions?

5
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by jdawg70 on Today at 02:21:42 PM »
I can confidently claim there is no Santa, and if pressed I could prove it.

I am incredibly interested in this.  If not this thread, Jstwebbrowsing, perhaps you could spawn a new thread supplying this proof?

Also, Jstwebbrowsing, I hope you didn't miss this.
6
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by jdawg70 on Today at 02:21:09 PM »
No, unbelief isn't going to be just zapped from your brain.  It will be removed by an obvious revelation of Jehovah's existence.  That doesn't remove free will.  Only by having that knowledge can one truly make a free will decision.  The determining factor isn't belief or unbelief bur rather obedience or disobedience.  Belief is required for either one.
So if belief is required for either obedience or disobedience, and Jehovah's explicit revelation will not remove free will, and that having that knowledge is the only way one can make a truly free willed decision...

So...uhhh....ummm....
Honestly I can't believe I just have to ask this given what you're saying above, but, like, why doesn't Jehovah just straight up revel himself now?  Like, provide this obvious revelation, say, 1800 years ago?

We shouldn't even be having these discussions about the existence of god or the existence of Jehovah, Jstwebbrowsing.  You seem to recognize that Jehovah's obvious presence would not itself be a violation of free will.  You seem to recognize that belief in the existence of Jehovah is a necessary prerequisite in the process of forming the free willed choice to follow him or not.

Either you are very explicitly calling atheists a bunch of liars or you do not actually agree with the things you say above.  Or you readily acknowledge that Jehovah is actually an asshole and bad, immoral entity.  I dunno.

Quote
Christ's time on earth was a preview of Judgement Day.  It was a time of judgement for Israel.  Note those that Christ condemned were all believers.  He came to teach the unbelievers.  Note that some of the Gentiles (unbelievers) were called righteous in the scriptures (Romans 2:13-16).  I think it would be foolish to paint all unbelievers with the same brush.
k but you recognize that unbelievers are implicitly incapable of even making the decision to obey or disobey Jehovah.

Quote
What seems to make the final decision is a person's willingness to do good.  "Not all those saying 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom ....... only those doing the will of God..."
Does that have any relationship to obedience?  And what is the relationship between belief in the existence of god and obedience?  Refer to your own words above if necessary.

Quote
Consider an illustration from the scriptures.  A man says to his son, "Go work in my vinyard."  The son says yes but does not go to work.  The man says to another son, "Go work in my vinyard."  The son says no but then goes to work.  Which son did the will of his father?
Did any of those sons lack belief in the existence of their father?

Quote
If someone says, "I believe in God", but does not do the things required by God, he is like the first son.  If someone says "I don't believe in God", but then does the things required by God, they are like the second son.
Do you understand what lacking a belief in the existence of god entails?

What does it mean to be obedient?  Can you legitimately - earnestly and honestly - be obedient to a will that is not your own without first actually believing that will actually exists?

Quote
Those with a desire to do good will find God.
Did you just tell me I don't desire to do good?

Quote
The big question is do you do the good that you know to be good?  If you use your knowldege that you do have to do good, more will be added to you.  If you don't use the knowledge that you do have then no more will be added.  And to whom much has been given much will be expected.

With Adam and Eve it wasn't a question of knowledge.  It was a question of their willingness to obey God.
Well there is still a component of knowledge involved here, is there not?  I mean, at a bare minimum, one has to know that god wanted to be obeyed.

Quote
This can be trivialized, but it was of paramount importance because of their ignorance.
Ignorance of what precisely?

Quote
Their life depended on their willingness to accept Jehovah's guidance because without it they are left groping in ignorance.

They possessed a little knowledge and little was expected.  But without a willigness to obey, giving them more knowledge was pointless.
This is just stupid Jstwebbrowsing.  Little was expected, and then the sum totality of all of creation was corrupted in response to their actions based on little knowledge.

Quote
Still today humans are groping in ignorance.  Until humans become all knowing we will always be ignorant.  Ignorance can lead to disaster.
Well shit I know a great solution there - provide knowledge.

I'm hitting myself with how stupid and backwards you are sounding right now Jstwebbrowsing. (literally I slapped my forehead quite hard)

Problem: Entity A possess insufficient knowledge to overcome the ignorance that holds them back.
Solution: Actively withhold knowledge so that Entity A will...eventually possess sufficient knowledge to overcome their ignorance.

Quote
Without a willingness to accept guidance, God's input is useless and he's not going to go around digging us out of the holes we dig for ourselves.  He will let us suffer the consequences of our actions.
Our actions?  My friend, I wasn't in the garden of Eden, and neither were you.
7
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Today at 02:00:53 PM »
Only by having that knowledge can one truly make a free will decision.

That is what I said somewhere on here. A god who hides is not providing free will.
8
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by Jstwebbrowsing on Today at 01:56:16 PM »
No I believe those the Bible calls "wicked" will suffer the judicial punishment of death.  I believe unbelief will be removed from the earth before this occurs.
So right before facing oblivion, I will believe that god exists, through no choice of my own?

How is that going to work?

Just clearly say that yes, god removes our free will prior to his kingdom of heaven arriving on Earth.  Near as I can tell, over the years speaking with you, that is precisely what you believe, yet I don't think you've ever explicitly said so.  And I think you say the opposite of that frankly.

I mean, I genuinely do not see any way to accomplish the removal of unbelief without involving the removal of free will.
A violation of free will to is to force someone down a path when another is available.

If this is the case, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why god doesn't just remove unbelief right now, or thousands of years ago, or at the dawn of sentience.  I'm told by others - maybe by you, maybe not - but I'm told many times that belief in the existence of god is some manner of choice, and that particular choice is something I need to make of my free will volition, and that my eternal fate is in some way tied to that belief/choice.

I dunno...maybe we start with this question:
Jstwebbrowsing, in your opinion, is your fate (e.g. heaven or oblivion or whatnot) entirely dependent upon free willed choices, or are there circumstances and situations that exist that dictate what your eternal fate is that is principally beyond your control - beyond your free will - absolutely independent of any choice?

Quote
Adam and Eve both are a special case because of their human perfection and their closesness to Jehovah, much like Satan himself.   The scriptures show that they were without excuse.  They were not unbelievers.  They did not make a simple mistake.  They actively rebelled against an obvious demonstration of Jehovah's spirit, and this I understand is a way to "blaspheme the Holy Spirit", or commit the unforgivable sin.
The scriptures tell you that they were without excuse.  That is very different from showing that they were without excuse.

Like...I dunno how you can possibly read 'human perfection' or whatever from Adam and Eve.  They were either imperfect in a way that Jesus wasn't imperfect (and, since Jesus existed at this time, clearly god could compare and contrast Jesus with Adam and Eve and notice the vast differences between Jesus and Adam and Eve), or, at the very least, so immensely stupid and mentally broken as to commit the unforgivable sin in full knowledge that it was an unforgivable sin against the all-mighty master of all-reality, with whom you have daily conversations with.

Look...I get you buy the Adam and Eve story, and that's fine, but it is a very stupid story, showcasing either an incredibly cruel Jehovah, an incredibly stupid Jehovah, or an incredibly cruel and stupid Jehovah.  And to even remotely think that Jehovah is some manner of forgiving creature in light of this story is kind of laughable.

Quote
Rebellion is evidenced by their lack of repentant attitude.  They, in effect, joined Satan.  It would have been just like if Christ had disobeyed Jehovah.  The nature of the disobedience is just not the same as most of ours.  Those that commit the unforgivable sin do not receive a resurrection.  We are all dying because of their rebellion.  Our blood is on their hands.
Yeah I guess I just want some clarity here:
Prior to eating the apple, did Adam and/or Eve know it was wrong to do it?

If Satan had explicitly asked Eve or Adam to join him, what do you think Eve or Adam's response would have been and why?

No, unbelief isn't going to be just zapped from your brain.  It will be removed by an obvious revelation of Jehovah's existence.  That doesn't remove free will.  Only by having that knowledge can one truly make a free will decision.  The determining factor isn't belief or unbelief bur rather obedience or disobedience.  Belief is required for either one. 

Christ's time on earth was a preview of Judgement Day.  It was a time of judgement for Israel.  Note those that Christ condemned were all believers.  He came to teach the unbelievers.  Note that some of the Gentiles (unbelievers) were called righteous in the scriptures (Romans 2:13-16).  I think it would be foolish to paint all unbelievers with the same brush. 

What seems to make the final decision is a person's willingness to do good.  "Not all those saying 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom ....... only those doing the will of God..."

Consider an illustration from the scriptures.  A man says to his son, "Go work in my vinyard."  The son says yes but does not go to work.  The man says to another son, "Go work in my vinyard."  The son says no but then goes to work.  Which son did the will of his father?

If someone says, "I believe in God", but does not do the things required by God, he is like the first son.  If someone says "I don't believe in God", but then does the things required by God, they are like the second son.

Those with a desire to do good will find God.  The big question is do you do the good that you know to be good?  If you use your knowldege that you do have to do good, more will be added to you.  If you don't use the knowledge that you do have then no more will be added.  And to whom much has been given much will be expected.

With Adam and Eve it wasn't a question of knowledge.  It was a question of their willingness to obey God.  This can be trivialized, but it was of paramount importance because of their ignorance.  Their life depended on their willingness to accept Jehovah's guidance because without it they are left groping in ignorance.

They possessed a little knowledge and little was expected.  But without a willigness to obey, giving them more knowledge was pointless.

Still today humans are groping in ignorance.  Until humans become all knowing we will always be ignorant.  Ignorance can lead to disaster.  Without a willingness to accept guidance, God's input is useless and he's not going to go around digging us out of the holes we dig for ourselves.  He will let us suffer the consequences of our actions.     
 


   
9
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Today at 01:38:52 PM »
If there is no free-will then there is no "you." "You" is a biological mass being directed by cause and effect which started all the way back at the Big Bang and will continue moving forward oblivious to the existence of any "you." As Jerry Coyne points out: Like the output of a programmed computer, only one choice is ever physically possible: the one you made." That means that any beliefs you have about “you” being some sort of independent decision maker, rationalizer, reasonor, etc is just an illusion. It means you are whatever nature has pre-programmed you to be. You are, in essence, a puppet of evolution. You may feel you are a "you" but that would contradict the notion of natural cause and effect. What you think and do is the result of neurons in your brain firing and responding to some stimuli within the environment you are in....nothing more. Even the idea of contra-causal free will appears to be a strawman with no rational basis.

I realize there is no proof of free will but I happen to think the evidence for it is rather glaring. That is all I have to say about that.

I see that you agree that thinking about thinking prevents you from being a puppet of evolution, which refutes Plantinga who thinks that behaviour causes belief directly.

btw the way, I hate to say that I explained how this can be accounted for by freedom of method, which is a form of thinking about thinking only a few posts ago on this thread. You have a habit of repeating rubbish and not reading carefully.
10
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by wheels5894 on Today at 01:12:08 PM »
Heh, Biblestudent, where did I mention free will? I didn't!

My argument is about the fact that no god, such as YHWH, appears to have a physical effect in the world. Ps 39 is an illustration of this. The thing is that we cannot claim a supernatural source for anything without showing a supernatural  being exists to exercise anything. The evidence for the supernatural, never mind gods, is precisely zero!

Show us a god we might agree with the argument but as we stand now, the only possible thing to have produced our minds is evolution but if you can show any other explanation, with evidence, I would be delighted.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10