Bluefire wrote:

Thank you for sharing your opinion. A number of people like to hang the 'label' 'omniscient' on God. Automation generated perhaps? LOL Even if his power and knowledge was limited somehow to only creating the heavens and the earth, and the life on earth, that's still pretty impressive!

In the big picture though, whatever you think (or however you categorize Him), IMHO, it hasn't impacted His actual level of wisdom or power one iota.

It would be nice if you could do something to objectively test your opinion though.

It would be nice if you could objectively test the existence of the god you believe in.

Bluefire wrote:
Thank you for sharing your opinion. A number of people like to hang the 'label' 'omniscient' on God. Automation generated perhaps? LOL Even if his power and knowledge was limited somehow to only creating the heavens and the earth, and the life on earth, that's still pretty impressive!

In the big picture though, whatever you think (or however you categorize Him), IMHO, it hasn't impacted His actual level of wisdom or power one iota.

It would be nice if you could do something to objectively test your opinion though.

Well, I looked at it objectively when I was atheist and started considering the idea of God.

It would be nice to have an objective test. Not so much for me since I've reasoned out the conclusion already. But I'd love to be able to have it peer reviewed and have the issue tested and validated.

Bluefire wrote:

Bluefire wrote:
Thank you for sharing your opinion. A number of people like to hang the 'label' 'omniscient' on God. Automation generated perhaps? LOL Even if his power and knowledge was limited somehow to only creating the heavens and the earth, and the life on earth, that's still pretty impressive!

In the big picture though, whatever you think (or however you categorize Him), IMHO, it hasn't impacted His actual level of wisdom or power one iota.

It would be nice if you could do something to objectively test your opinion though.

Well, I looked at it objectively when I was atheist and started considering the idea of God.

It would be nice to have an objective test. Not so much for me since I've reasoned out the conclusion already. But I'd love to be able to have it peer reviewed and have the issue tested and validated.

That's one of the funniest things you've said lately!  Good one... 

It's interesting how even with the knowledge that there IS NO objective test for god, you believe you have looked at the notion of god objectively.  How does that work?

Bluefire wrote:
Thank you for sharing your opinion. A number of people like to hang the 'label' 'omniscient' on God. Automation generated perhaps? LOL Even if his power and knowledge was limited somehow to only creating the heavens and the earth, and the life on earth, that's still pretty impressive!

In the big picture though, whatever you think (or however you categorize Him), IMHO, it hasn't impacted His actual level of wisdom or power one iota.

It would be nice if you could do something to objectively test your opinion though.

So then you will not have a problem expressing your conclusions regarding your consideration of God to a former devout believer who studied God at an academic level and then became an atheist as a result... and also to everyone else reading this thread.

Barring that, the claim that you looked at it objectively remains extremely suspect.

kickfight wrote:
Barring that, the claim that you looked at it objectively remains extremely suspect.

Unless this is "opposite day!"

Gianantonio wrote:
That's one of the funniest things you've said lately!  Good one... 

It's interesting how even with the knowledge that there IS NO objective test for god, you believe you have looked at the notion of god objectively.  How does that work?

Don't atheists look at their surroundings objectively???

kickfight wrote:
So then you will not have a problem expressing your conclusions regarding your consideration of God to a former devout believer who studied God at an academic level and then became an atheist as a result... and also to everyone else reading this thread.

Barring that, the claim that you looked at it objectively remains extremely suspect.

There's nothing new to add tonight that hasn't been expressed in past threads. If you haven't been able to follow the ideas to this point, perhaps you just don't have an open mind to the idea. Or, maybe you're to busy emulating other posts and hurrying to get that last post, that you don't actually stop and ponder the thought. I can't say for sure. You said you were somewhat educated.  I see evidence of you being prejudiced towards believers' thoughts in your posts. That could also influence your mental ability to be objective.

I don't speak for all (or even a lot) of atheists.

This was true before this thread was started...

kickfight wrote:
So then you will not have a problem expressing your conclusions regarding your consideration of God to a former devout believer who studied God at an academic level and then became an atheist as a result... and also to everyone else reading this thread.

Barring that, the claim that you looked at it objectively remains extremely suspect.

This reply illustrates that you find yourself as unable to express this idea any more coherently than any other idea. It is so noted for the record.

That's an interesting opinion which also fails basic scrutiny. Interesting to note as such also.

That would be yet another error on your part, one of many you've made on this thread.

I am certainly open to the thoughts of believers, having been one myself. Of course, when those believers' thoughts as expressed are riddled with unfounded opinion, blatant error and outright fallacy, I have no problem pointing that out... having been a believer myself.

How so? I am biased against lazy and poorly-substantiated thought, but am entirely open to intelligent argumentation that illustrates a reasonable acquaintance with the topic.

So, you actually are NOT capable of answering my question, right?

I know that. God designed you, me, the human race with mental ability, and free-will, to speak our own thoughts though.

kickfight wrote:
This reply illustrates that you find yourself as unable to express this idea any more coherently than any other idea. It is so noted for the record.

That's an interesting opinion which also fails basic scrutiny. Interesting to note as such also.

That would be yet another error on your part. I am certainly open to the thoughts of believers, having been one myself. Of course, when those believers' posts are riddled with unfounded opinion, error and fallacy, I have no problem pointing it out, having been a believer myself.

How so? I am biased against lazy and poorly-substantiated thought, but am entirely open to intelligent argumentation that illustrates a reasonable acquaintance with the topic.

So, you actually are NOT capable of answering my question, right?

There's nothing related to the thread's topic. Could you get back on track please.

How is it consistent with a deterministic model?

Bluefire wrote:
There's nothing related to the thread's topic. Could you get back on track please.

Both your original comment and my subsequent question based on your comment were 100% on topic.

The topic of this thread is God. 

Now that you have been reminded of the thread topic, and it has been shown that my question is entirely topical, and will remain so no matter what, may I request an answer to my entirely-topical question?

We're not talking about atheists as an abstract class.  We're talking about a small group of atheists who argue with believers in soapbox.  They share more traits and ideas amongst themselves than simply the unlikeliness of gods.  And even when they are making good points, their interlocutors often don't understand them.

Our behavior is also completely consistent with a non-deterministic model.

But we don't presently have any real model of behavior, let alone a deterministic one.  (We have models of various bits of behavior and brain function, but nothing approaching a comprehensive model of human behavior.)

I'm curious why you keep coming back to determinism in this thread about free will.  You've already said that free will is impossible with or without determinism.

Bluefire wrote:

I know that. God designed you, me, the human race with mental ability, and free-will, to speak our own thoughts though.

Thanks for your opinion on that. It has been duly noted and "filed."

You do realize that when someone comments on an old comment of mine it's not because "I keep coming back to it" right?

You do realize that when someone comments on an old comment of mine it's not because "I keep coming back to it" right?

You're right, I misread things.  My curiosity is abated.

Because if he is omnipotent he exists outside time:  he already know the future and what all individuals will do.  There is no such thing as "random acts" to an omnipotent being.

"This is everything that will ever happen", thinks God with the whole of time laid out before him.  "This person will abuse a child and this one will murder a million innocent people in mass genocide.  And this storm will kill thousands.  I could act to change these things, but I won't."

There is no waiting to see what people will do for God, there is no waiting for the "end of time" - he is already there as well as here.

If God cannot do this, if he exists in the present only and waits to see what will happen by giving us free will, he most certainly isn't omnipotent.

See previous post above.

The single most important, relevant word you typed in your thought is the second one - if. Your whole post is speculative (and pessimistic).

While millions (billions) of people use their free-will to behave negatively, others are treating people with love, kindness, compassion, and helping in harmony with 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 - "Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails."

We choose what our actions will be, how we will treat others, and our outlook. You should try being a little more positive, optimistic.

Bluefire wrote:
The single most important, relevant word you typed in your thought is the second one - if. Your whole post is speculative (and pessimistic).

While millions (billions) of people use their free-will to behave negatively, others are treating people with love, kindness, compassion, and helping in harmony with 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 - "Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails."

We choose what our actions will be, how we will treat others, and our outlook. You should try being a little more positive, optimistic.

The ONLY way your argument could work is if your god was not aware of the future, that he exists in the present and the future is as unknown to him as it is to us.

But such an argument would make all the predictions of the future contained in the Bible nothing more than idle speculation...!

So what is it?  An omnipotent god who knows the future and influenced the Bible, or a limited god who knows nothing of the future?

Or would you prefer to have your cake and eat it?

You could sound more scientific and intelligent if you just said 'we don't know' - as Robyn posted.

+1

Bluefire wrote:

You could sound more scientific and intelligent if you just said 'we don't know' - as Robyn posted.

Ah!  A misunderstanding on your part, I think.  Not knowing everything isn't the same as not knowing anything!

And in this case we have a clear choice:  an omnipotent god who knows what is going to happen and what choices are going to be made, or a lesser god who only exists in the present and can only guess what the future holds, like us mere Humans.

That's the point, it is just a story.  And we have considerable evidence that it is just a story.

Well, in your story/mind, you have a choice between only two possibilities...

I've got free-will, and an open mind, to consider all possibilities.

And, we have a conspicuous lack of evidence for free will.  In fact, when one considers that the impetus to act occurs in the brain prior to us being conscious of that occurrence, free will looks pretty much dead in the water.  Even if one entertains the possibility that the spark of that impetus is the result of an indeterministic process, that is still not helpful to the free will postulation.

Bluefire wrote:

Well, in your story/mind, you have a choice between only two possibilities...

I've got free-will, and an open mind, to consider all possibilities.

Interestingly, we don't have the free will to choose between possibilities.

Bluefire wrote:
Well, in your story/mind, you have a choice between only two possibilities...

I've got free-will, and an open mind, to consider all possibilities.

I appreciate you expressing the thought you did. Why are you referring to yourself in the 'we' context? Perhaps you may not have the free will to choose between possibilities? To get new tires for your car? Or to ride on bald tires in the winter? You don't have the free will to choose between these possibilities??? Please share more about your mindset.

I pretty sure they understand the points.

Bluefire wrote:
I've got free-will, and an open mind, to consider all possibilities.

LOL! As long as the bible allows it.

How do you know all that?

The thread's topic is pretty clear. I have confidence that you can comprehend it as well. Perhaps you're also aware of the Soapbox guidelines to discuss the topic.

At this time, do either of you have any additional thoughts pertaining to the thread's topic?

BTW, thanks for demonstrating/using your free will to post something other than a thread related thought. LOL

It looks like you've shown that God doesn't have to control every minute detail.

That is very much on topic. God is in control of you all the time. He doesn't allow you to think thoughts that are against the teachings of the Bible.

Opinions vary.

Bluefire wrote:

Bluefire wrote:
Well, in your story/mind, you have a choice between only two possibilities...

I've got free-will, and an open mind, to consider all possibilities.

I appreciate you expressing the thought you did. Why are you referring to yourself in the 'we' context? Perhaps you may not have the free will to choose between possibilities? To get new tires for your car? Or to ride on bald tires in the winter? You don't have the free will to choose between these possibilities??? Please share more about your mindset.

I referred to "we" because this is true of all humans (if not all things). 

Using your example: 

1)  Say your car has bald tires (this will be the fact).  If you don't know the tires are bald, you can't take any action because of that fact.  Agreed?

2)  You could buy new tires without knowledge of the fact that they are bald.  Agreed?

3)  When your brain registers the fact that your tires are bald, a process is initiated and carried through (this will be referred to as "the process"):  The process determines if you act or don't act on the knowledge of this fact (that your tires are bald); and if there is a decision to act, the process continues to determine the course of action you take (get new tires immediately, plan to get new tires soon, ignore the fact, etc.).  Agreed?

4)  The process involves connecting bits of knowledge in your memory as well as feelings and thoughts about that knowledge (these will be referred to as "bits":  It's unsafe to drive on bald tires; I like to be safe; new tires are expensive; I have some money but not a lot of extra right now; I can use the bus for most of my usual activities until I have the money for tires; I don't like waiting for the bus; I could use my credit card; I don't like credit card debt; if I skipped going to movies and eating at restaurants this month I could use my credit card and have enough money when the credit card bill is due to pay it off; etc.  Agreed?

5)  Some sort of weighting scheme or algorithm is applied to the above bits as the process determines what to do about the fact.  That process yields a result--the result can be the decision to do a particular thing (e.g., buy now, buy later), or it might fail to produce a result (you can't decide what to do).  Agreed?

6)  If you reach a decision, you go on to other processes to enact your decision.  Agreed?

7)  If you fail to reach a decision, you go back to Point 4--possibly seeking out and adding more bits that are relevant to the situation (like asking friends what they would do, doing an internet search of possible results of driving on bald tires).  Agreed?

8)  While the algorithm in Point 5 might change with time and circumstance, when applied at a given time, for a given individual, it renders a single result when completed (keeping in mind that result might be to go back to Point 4)--we'll call this result "the decision" and for the sake of convenience, consider a decision that does NOT send us back to Point 4.  Agreed?

9)  If we had complete knowledge of the algorithm, we could then take that decision and trace back to what caused it to be made.  Agreed?

10)  Lack of complete knowledge of the algorithm does not mean the algorithm doesn't exist and isn't applied to the bits.  Agreed?

11)  Where, in your opinion, does free will enter the process described above?  And what is the mechanism for it's operation?  Does one decide you use free will?  Does one have the free will to decide NOT to use free will? 

12)  Barring any new information (i.e., bits) being applied to the process (algorithm), what would have caused the process to yield a different decision?  And please, don't be so naive as to offer "I could have used my free will to select a different decision."  What I'm trying to get you to try to do is articulate how that free will you think you have works.  What's the mechanism by which it operates?  What parts of the brain, if any, are at play when it is in use? 

13)  When in the human gestation period does free will appear?  Does a zygote have free will?  What about a 1 month old fetus?  6 month old fetus? 

I know, I've asked you a lot of questions; and you don't like answering questions.  But I enjoyed writing this out.  Hopefully, others will find it interesting.