The reality of your conscious choice is aptly demonstrated by your ability claim that cognitive science suggests that it is an illusion. The fact that cognitive science is unable to fully define how conscious choice occurs does not prove that it does not exist. Our demonstrable ability to make conscious choices is clear evidence of our spiritual nature which is currently beyond the realms of human understanding.
I am claiming that God has the power to intelligently interact with the natural events of this universe to produce desired results. Humans can do this too. But the source of this interaction cannot come from advanced material based species because any such action would just be deterministic reaction to natural events. Any intelligently controlled interaction must come from a source which is not controlled by the deterministic cause and effect scenario of material based entities. So I have to conclude that any intelligent interaction, be it God's or man's, is sourced from a supernatural event
If we only accept the rather obvious idea of an independent Self or Subject ...nothing is more simple than reincarnation!!!!
Let's take standard new atheist psychologies as a contrast which are reductionist, suffer often from the naturalistic fallacy, dubious in proposing psychological incompetence for some but not for others and even downright dangerous in reclassification of the human being into a bonobo with a bowler hat.
Well you could start with whether a coherent anthropology and psychology are on offer.
Those who take a negative position vis a vis religion have a poor anthropology and psychology chiefly marked by unsubstantiated claims of universal psychological incompetence on the part of everybody except themselves. And of course their moral theory, er, isn't.............So, i'm afraid it has to be religion then.
(in answer to it having been pointed out that fallacious arguments fail)
If the premise(s) for the arguments are themselves incoherent or fallacious, the charge of incoherent/fallacious will be itself incoherent/fallacious.
I believe that we (many of us...not everybody) have today reached a level of mental discipline and altruism only because of the teachings of religions and the discipline enforced by religions all these centuries. If religions did not exist we would today still be savages, fighting with one another with no sense of universal brotherhood or humanism or self control.
So...you have to thank religions for the discipline enforced on earlier generations ...such that today you have enough self control and sense of justice that you will not commit a fraud or a murder. But having said that, without law enforcement of today, how long this self discipline will last...no one can say.
We all need supervision....even today!
ippy...It doesn't matter if you don't believe. :) That is just your path of development. You will also get there like everyone else. Maybe in your next birth you will be a Yogi living in the Himalayas...you never know! ;)
Making someone understand is very difficult. Taking the simple instance of the moon landing deniers. How can you possibly convince them that people have actually landed on the moon? Anything you argue or show them could be mocked and dismissed. That is the way their mind is programmed and that will not change easily.
Similarly, if someone does not believe that there is anything beyond the mundane realities of the body, earth and so on, there is nothing anyone can do to convince them that there is something. All philosophy and detailed spiritual teachings are for those who accept them in the first place.
Awareness of our Creator (or conscious denial of our Creator) would be a definitive feature of our conscious awareness.
I have simply claimed that the conscious will of my soul is responsible for the posts I make on this forum, because I can't envisage any other feasible explanation.
You claim that if my spiritual soul exists, whatever it does will be deterministic in the same way as physical brain activity. But if my free will actions are derived from my soul, you must at least admit that they will have a different origin (being spiritual) to anything produced from physical brain activity. So can I repeat my request for you to say what defines the ultimate source of my posts (and yours). This is not a distraction, but a fundamental issue concerning what drives the conscious free will of human beings.
I don't agree that random genetic variation and Natural Selection explain evolution as we see it. This, to me, is common sense.
'Natural Selection' is just a metaphor and not a specific process at all!
f you are really interested, here is the best visual demonstration of faith I've seen. It's Indy's third trial in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Watch from about 3:16 in. What is unseen becomes seen when the step of faith is taken.
You are not really thinking outside the box of our physical universe. Time is a property of our universe, but most likely not a property of whatever brought the universe into existence. The ultimate source of all existence must exist in a timeless state, otherwise it would need a beginning which needs another source ... (turtles all the way down!).
My objectivity leads me to the conclusion that God is the only possible explanation for my existence.
My logic boils down to the impossibility of conscious awareness arising from a chaotic material universe without God's intervention. I know you disagree with this conclusion, but there is no material definition for what comprises conscious awareness and how it can be generated from purely material entities.
There is a whole antitheist industry or modus of entertainment/expression based around ridiculing all of theism which rides on the back of unfalsifiability.
Apart from revealing the inner redneck there is real social harm to be had here.
The term ''there might be categoric differences'' is disingenuous.
These are either points to take seriously or humourously. If we are to take philosophy seriously we must look to non categorising or generalising.
Atheists find God unfalsifiability.
Atheists find ridiculous things unfalsifiable
Atheists then conclude that all unfalsifiables are ridiculous
Atheists challenged by multiverse
Atheists conclude not all unfalsifiables are ridiculous.
Antitheists still like the ridicule link though.
Antitheists arbitrarily single out which unfalsifiables are ridiculous and include God.
Antitheists take the rise out of theists and mock them on the same bases that homophobes might ridicule say a gay pride march........ based on logical fallacies.
I will say though that anybody stating that methodological materialism is/gives you a model of reality which is adequate for them is dripping philosophical entailment since the statement is not a methodological naturalistic one, And certainly if adequacy entails using such arguments to discuss God as an inferior to philosophical materialism.
No, I am in no way suggesting that others are lying, but I do believe they are genuinely deluded by the nature of our increasingly secular society. I am trying to help people see through the veils of deception which separate us from the love of God.
The range of alternatives for how the universe either came about or eternally is was given. None are susceptible to scientific investigation and are therefore supernatural.
That seems to cover everything. Care to disagree without getting into the circularity of scientism?
Who are we to question why God does things the way He does? I humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom.
Why doesn't God save all?
Jesus died to save all... this shows God wants all to be saved.
God can intervene more in the lives of those who have give their lives to him through Christ than those who reject him.
Like a doctor can intervene and do more with a patient willing to accept treatment and one who cannot.
Sometimes atheists are left to their own devices they put their trust in medicine but forget God.
If you had to trust in medicine or God which would you trust?
The believer has the benefit of both.. But it is a choice. Do you as an atheist call on God?
I heard someone on tv the other day say they were driving somewhere and they came around a corner and there was suddenly cattle in front of them. They cried out to God and suddenly they were on the other side without harm.
You all make the decision of what and whom you trust in...
Modify message
Can you not see the difference between physical determinism, in which our conscious awareness is just a spectator, and spiritual determinism which allows our conscious awareness to interact and take control?
In argument the properties of the Leprechaun are often elevated to those of the divine. That surely goes beyond your categorisation.
If Leprechauns are small visible green irish men then they are not strictly unfalsifiable even if they do have miraculous yet sub divine powers.
Your adherence to their use is therefore for the purpose of ridicule.
Your appeal for multiverse is at base naturalistic and materialist...well leprechauns are little Irishmen...what can be more naturalistic than that?
God is perfectly reasonable within Thomistic philosophy since He is an explanatory for a universe with change.
(Note the Lewis referred to is C S Lewis)
Lewis is probably as honest as you can get since he acknowledges humanities universal condition of falling short of the mark morally.
For many if not all antitheists on here their subtext is either or all the following......that Christians are mentally deficient or abbérant or they are lacking morally and that would go for Jesus himself who led people to believe he was the son of God.......there are multiple sources on that and you have yet to establish that his quotes are made up by others.
I did detect earlier confusion by others between Jesus sayings and his ministry of miracles.
We are very much at the wire here and I'm afraid you either believe they are our Lords words or not.
The wire of antitheism is that Jesuses words are bollocks because we are helpless and hapless bonobos caught in a Darwinian game.ewis is probably as honest as you can get since he acknowledges humanities universal condition of falling short of the mark morally.
For many if not all antitheists on here their subtext is either or all the following......that Christians are mentally deficient or abbérant or they are lacking morally and that would go for Jesus himself who led people to believe he was the son of God.......there are multiple sources on that and you have yet to establish that his quotes are made up by others.
I did detect earlier confusion by others between Jesus sayings and his ministry of miracles.
We are very much at the wire here and I'm afraid you either believe they are our Lords words or not.
The wire of antitheism is that Jesuses words are bollocks because we are helpless and hapless bonobos caught in a Darwinian game.
I do appreciate your sincere attempts to try to explain and justify your concept of reality, but your reasoning is very shallow in comparison to the spiritual insights I perceive through the awareness of my human soul. I am sorry that I do not have time to answer all your points, but I try to home in on what I perceive to be important.
(As the start of a thread, poster called The Quick guide to Dodgy Fallacies)
Step 1: Has the ''fallacy'' been outlined by an antitheist
Step 2: Google the ''fallacy''. If the first entries direct you to sites like RationalWiki you know were on dodgy ground.
Logic is defined as....
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:We were unable to follow his logic.
3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions:There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness:
logic is not just about mathematics....2+2=4 etc. That is only one specific type of logic.
Check out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Logic is related to culture, background and whatever seems reasonable at that time, in that social culture, with that knowledge and in that situation. For example....in a culture which is largely religious...it would be very logical to suppose that a God created the world. Logically there is no other explanation at all. To argue that the universe got generated by chance...would be very illogical and unreasonable.
In an atheist culture it would be logical to assume that some natural law generated the universe.
(On being asked about the 2 different durations given for the Flood)
I will comment on the above point first. If these were two different durations for the flood, we wouldn't expect the dates of the flood's beginning and ending to tally with the total number of days given.
So the durations are not contradictory, and we can look next at other aspects of the DH.
As for the resurrection........that is the craziest thing. The sort of thing that can only be believed if it's true.
(commenting on film about an after life)
The film seems to have focused only on suicides that could be triggered if the after-life is seen as real. But so many other things would also happen which would be much more significant.
1. People would be happier because they know death is only a transition.
2. People would be more moral and ethical because someone is watching and keeping records.
3. People will focus less on pleasures here and more on their duties and responsibilities.
4. Scientists would stop philosophizing and giving their opinion on religion and spirituality. Dawkins would be somewhat depressed.
5. No one will bother about the cosmos and galaxies, big bang, exo planets etc. Better things to do.
6. Similarly with QM, evolution etc., though genetics and medical science would still be fairly relevant.
7. Crime may come down for fear of the after-life.....because the after-life does not mean only 'heaven', there would be a 'hell' too. Some NDErs have said so.
8. Generally, priorities will change dramatically, and lifestyles will change...though some people may still be unable to control their base animal instincts.
1. Investigations and clinical research are normally carried out in developed, rich countries like America and Europe... but only on things that are within their culture and their lifestyle. No one carries out research on diets or practices or lifestyles that are present in Asia, middle east or other places. These are usually disregarded...unless they start impacting western lifestyles significantly (like Yoga).
Some papers have been published now in the west on the benefits of fasting...though it is a common practice in India for centuries but in the west was laughed at till recently as a poverty driven practice.
2. In countries like India there is very little interest and scarce resources to carry out such formal research on all the hundreds of traditional diets, customs and medical practices. Where are the sponsors, professionals and other resources? Many day to day practices, diets, food items are continued to be used on the basis of either traditional authority or anecdotal evidence and no one looks around for formal clinical research reports.
3. In all countries, even in the UK I am sure, many traditional practices, customs and methods are still prevalent among the people, though no formal research has been conducted on these or their efficacy established beyond doubt. It is impossible to establish such matters beyond doubt in all cases. Who will sponsor the research?
4. Even in areas where formal research has been conducted and results published, one cannot be too sure of the correctness of the results. We have seen how oils and fats were rejected by doctors for decades (much against common wisdom) but are suddenly today being touted as healthy. Even the much talked about good cholesterol vs bad cholesterol issue, which formed the basis of most medical diagnosis....is now under review with many experts saying that cholesterol is not responsible for heart problems.
So...what really is all this research worth?!
It's obvious you don't understand this at all.
The argument is bottom up. All change or potential we observe is derived.
Derived change is illogical without actual power.
Your brain is locked in a linear chain of causation which I acknowledge could be infinite. What we cannot have though is derived/potential/power/ability and change alone without actual power.
Did you watch Feser or do you wish to do a Dawkins not bother with the argument because you feel just asserting it must be rubbish is in fact your knock down?
That of course would be humbug from someone who constantly refer us to sundry pop and TV experts.
So we are not talking about something coming from something like a shape shifting mass of matter energy begetting new forms of itself.
The mass needs to move NOW.
Away from Feser and Aristotle there are numerous articles of how Dawkins gets the wrong end of the stick about this thing so it's not surprising his little wizards have the same flaw in their 'memes'.(unfortunately some pseudoscience always manages to creep through) There is also my contribution to the debating thread which no one has yet put up a refutation.
You tried but saying science will eventually go beyond the supernatural possible start of everything from nothing, or eternal matter or self potentialised and transferred energy is just faith.
You are of course free to refute...................Cue bluster.
All this of course is transcended IMHO by the issue of why something and not nothing.
(opening a topic they have titled Universalism)
Are we like rowing boats frantically trying to bail out the rising water of God and failing or will we be successful and stop the leak?
It's a considered opinion walterPPK. Dawkins was a populariser. His universal Darwinian ideas chimed exactly with Thatcherism. There is not a Dawkinsian conclusion which cannot be harnessed to anti welfare self interest.
(In reply to a post stating that because we do not always have sex to procreate, talking about sex having the sole function as procreation would be incorrevt)
It is a means to and end...pregnancy.
In that it is the only natural way of procreating.
If you abstain you don't get pregnant.
The mouth is for speaking and it is the means for getting food to the stomach.
Because you use your mouth for other things does not mean it was designed for those things.
Somethings were created/designed to be used by the mouth.
However the natural functions are speech, eating and breathing.
I understand what you are saying here. How is God telling the Israelites to put a city to the sword any different from a jihadist thinking God had told him to kill people, for example? But there is a difference; in the conquest of Canaan, some cities were burned up, such as Jericho (Joshua 6). This only applied to the cities in what was intended to be a 'holy land', who wouldn't make a treaty with Israel. The idea was that there would be a land where God's law was perfectly followed (a bit like the Islamic vision of a Caliphate) that would eventually be spread throughout the world. Everything in these cities was said to be 'devoted to the Lord' (v.17). By totally destroying something or someone, that thing was irrevocably God's, going up to heaven in smoke. The burnt offering described in Leviticus carried the same idea. However since that time, God has sent Jesus to be a perfect, once-for-all offering, so that there is no need for sacrifices any more. Because jihadists reject this they still live in the days when sacrificial practices were carried out to gain God's forgiveness.
Give over you just refuse like so many pagans, who want to change paganism by denying and breaking away from their own evil history of human sacrifice of their own children and such things.
Paganism has a wide and diverse definition but you have laugh when people like you claim to have the elite knowledge of paganism. The very fact you cannot even begin to understand that without creation paganism is none existent.
You see paganism can be summed up in that it worships and relates to that which is created. You can insult and you can create as much attempts to malign as you like. But the forces of nature are part of creation. Without nature without that which is created you would have paganism to follow. It is a simple fact and it won't change because it is those forces on which everything that paganism is about and relies on.
Yes, I do know about paganism and the fact it holds no power.
There is only one source of power after Gods own power and that is SATAN.
Think on before you start the next argument/post because truth does not change and Christ is the Son of God the one true God who created what you believe in.
(In response to being asked what other freedoms racists should lose in addition to not being allowed in any restaurant according to earlier comment on this news story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38561883)
Their liberty, they should be locked up, in my opinion. The now banned, Paedophile Exchange, used to bang on about their right to have sex with children, should perverts be permitted to air their views?
can you provide any evidence that science is relevant to real life that doesn't rely on science itself?
This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.
The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.
People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.
'Marriage' is the institution in which sex between a man and a woman not closely related should be confined. Nothing else can be called by the same term.
It's an ideal based on facts not taste.
'On problems in NHS in England and Wales'
What do you expect the closure of so many hospitals and the A&E shutting has put millions of our people at risk. All part of entering the EU to stop them taking advantage of the services and make it private.
It is all about money making... THINK! What happens when just a few hospitals remain.
First come first served. We did not have enough before now we have less hospitals and further for people to travel to get medical help, HOW many lives will that cost?
The mess we will have will not be caused by any Brexit but the stupidity of a Government who treated our people like cattle and a number, who would allow a rule which demobbed our monarchy and our independance as the Greatest Nation the world has ever known.
You see I am under no illusion that if God had not used our nation we would be nowhere.
Israel was Gods chosen Nation and that has not changed. But I believe our nation greatly blessed because it was used by God to save Israel and the mass murder which Hitler enforced and others in the past.
As a Christian Country we cannot go against the ways of God and hope to survive.
We cannot join a union which would use it's power against the world.
Really power is born out of selfless love for ourselves and each other.
We want a world rid of starvation, sickness and disease and we can only do that when we change as individuals and care about what really matters. God loves us and gave us our freedom and built us into the Country we are today. He has given us a sovereign who has dedicated her life to God and the welfare of this Country. I am not one for throwing that in the bin no matter how much people might dislike me for it, because they cannot grasp the importance of us NOT being in the EU. It will become clearer in time however. But I know God has worked this for our good as a nation though we all do not see that right now.
I said it is obvious to most people. Which is true! Whether any scientist concurs with it or not is of no consequence at all.
And I suppose according to the 'fallacy' you named, till some scientist guy takes the final decision and waves a green flag...the observation cannot be considered as correct! Nice!
This could not have been the right approach, because, as most people would agree, the Bible says it's wrong. They would have been tempting them to act against what their scripture teaches (ie apostatize) in order to keep their licences. The best thing would have been either to disqualify all church ministers from acting as registrars, as NS said, or allow them to do so without requiring them to conduct SSMs. The acts of marrying same sex couples and giving practicing homosexuals positions in ministry, both of which a church is currently not required to do, would involve a minister doing something that is against biblical teaching, and thus illogical.
To disallow ministers of religion to act as registrars (for heterosexual couples) would likewise be illogical. This is because the marriage service in (say) a Christian wedding is by nature more 'valid' (probably the wrong word) than a simple civil ceremony, since it is done in the sight of God and includes promises of lifelong faithfulness etc (which civil ceremonies do not require). It thus makes marriages stronger.
Heterosexuals can be married on the assumption that they will use sex safely and properly, for the purpose it is meant for.
There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex, and there is more temptation to use unsafe ways; therefore there is no mandate to legitimize it.
You are still caught in the religious idea of the 'ultimate' explanation. There is no ultimate explanation that we can possibly attempt to understand. The attempt here is only to understand immediate causes.
Ideas such as random variations, chance, emergent property etc. are not explanations. They are attempts to keep possible non material explanations at bay and to circumvent all such ideas. It is a fear of the non material. The God phobia!
What I am attempting is only to explain Consciousness, Self, Life and other phenomena that we experience everyday. For this, taking a cue from the way man made objects get created and how they evolve, is perfectly in order. As above so below!
Science requires more faith than belief in Jesus Christ. :D
He created the English language, it is just men who are not strong on understanding the word of God, especially ATHEIST. :)
You still aren't making the distinction between the two questions
Why is there anything and not nothing and how does anything pop out of nothing.
The context of the first question is that something is not dependent on time or finitude or infinitude.
That cannot be said of the second.
I think you have described my position as 'the polish plumber situation that God finds energy and tinkers with it.
Firstly actual power never finds anything least of all already realised potential. You assume actual finds something rather than causes something.
I think your model might have the derived power changing the actual power and misunderstands energy as essentially something static rather than a change or transfer. But i'm open to an alternative argument
Yes I agree your conception of the word is not up to the job of describing the ''notion of sustaining''. Because it completely explains AWAY without tackling the nature of a hierarchical chain of derivation.
You have therefore played the intellectual fascist/pirate role again and deliberately fixed creation as a point in time.
I'm afraid if being can be eternal, something you and others have argued for then dependent being can be particularly when ability is observed to be derived.
In short nothing you have said addresses the derived power/actual power dilemma.
In maintaining eternal being without actual power your argument is going to remain illogical.
As I said, start polishing.
There is no ducking on my part. Just your avoidance of the logical.
Once again without the actual the derived cannot be. Energy is change and therefore derived.
If energy is eternally sustained then without God it ceases to be.
If it is eternal then a God who finds it clearly isn't and is derived.
That leaves all energy derived and that is illogical since where is your actual.
Actual power is unavoidable if derived power is observed and it is.
I'm afraid that rather leaves you as the naughty schoolboy of whom the teacher reports
''if only he spent time and his intellectual capabilities learning rather than on avoiding learning.''
As I said if the universe has a moment where it popped out of nothing that is a change and therefore that has to logically be derived power and therefore there has to be actual power.
If it doesn't then I'm afraid there is, has been and will be forever more only anything here because of actual power and the complete eternal dependence of it.