Logically rationalize God

[Investigator]

I guess I'm a different kind of atheist. I don't understand the arguments in this thread because proving god's existence means nothing to me. I don't really care if he exists or not, I still wouldn't follow him. It's like having a bad father. You are not a slave to your father just because he created you. I do remember being religious though. God to me was more or less a representation of own values/philosophy. Which is a bigger deal to me than whatever everyone else was preaching. Once I reached to that conclusion I left the religion. Why would you even submit to anyone, let alone a being that supposedly gave you the option to defy him? I would make that choice every single time.

It's funny because looking back I remember when I first told my family I'm an atheist we were going through a rough patch, most of them said that is the only reason I have felt discouraged and left the religion. But the reality is I've actually planned to leave eventually. I just didn't know how, when and where. That is more or less how I plan my long term goals. I'm very opportunistic by nature, I don't force things unless I have to, I'm happy to sit back and wait for a long time but once I'm provided with an opportunity I don't shy away from taking it no matter how drastic it seems to others. It always looks like I make rash decisions when I eventually make them because I don't hesitate (I would have thought about it a million times already), especially if I don't tell anyone about my plans beforehand, which I very rarely do. I feel guilty because the situation wasn't pleasant for anyone and it was very stressful, but again, I would make that choice every single time.

What I am about to say is disassociated from the main theme of the thread:

I truly do understand your thoughts and feeling. God didn't expect people to love him just because he created them. He truly does have good intentions for us. If he didn't, he would not grant us free will and make us in his own image. He wouldn't send Jesus Christ in the flesh just to die by his own creations. There was absolutely no reason to do that other than to show that he knows life is hard (He is omniscient), but he has given you a role model that went through harsh tribulations and exposed to the same temptations we all go through even though he didn't have to. "We love him because he first loved us"-1 John 4:19. A lot of people talk about the "harshness" of God's punishments in the Old Testaments without understanding the reasons or the context for the punishments. Without realizing we are human beings meaning we are not omniscient, so there may be good deeds in which we don't realize that they are good. I understand how you feel about being mistrustful of other people's preachings. Even though I am Christian myself, I find myself arguing with people who claim to be my spiritual authority. However, you must realize your most important spiritual authority is God and you have to know him for yourself.

Being a Christian doesn't mean being a slave to religion and its institutions. It means being in a personal relation with God, who loves you unconditional whether you are Christian or not. If I have a child, and he announced himself as an atheist, I would still love him. Sure I would be sad, but I wouldn't want to make him sad. Instead I would shower him with love and preach to him, but not to the point of shoving done Christianity down his throat. The bible tells us precisely not to do this.

I'm conflicted because that is my favourite character. Maybe I should retype as ILI, seems like a lot of ILIs like him.

He is my favorite as well, I just love how he ignored everyone's lack of trust in his abilities and gets stuff done.

[Ryan]

What I am about to say is disassociated from the main theme of the thread:

I truly do understand your thoughts and feeling. God didn't expect people to love him just because he created them. He truly does have good intentions for us. If he didn't, he would not grant us free will and make us in his own image. He wouldn't send Jesus Christ in the flesh just to die by his own creations. There was absolutely no reason to do that other than to show that he knows life is hard (He is omniscient), but he has given you a role model that went through harsh tribulations and exposed to the same temptations we all go through even though he didn't have to. "We love him because he first loved us"-1 John 4:19. A lot of people talk about the "harshness" of God's punishments in the Old Testaments without understanding the reasons or the context for the punishments. Without realizing we are human beings meaning we are not omniscient, so there may be good deeds in which we don't realize that they are good. I understand how you feel about being mistrustful of other people's preachings. Even though I am Christian myself, I find myself arguing with people who claim to be my spiritual authority. However, you must realize your most important spiritual authority is God and you have to know him for yourself.

Being a Christian doesn't mean being a slave to religion and its institutions. It means being in a personal relation with God, who loves you unconditional whether you are Christian or not. If I have a child, and he announced himself as an atheist, I would still love him. Sure I would be sad, but I wouldn't want to make him sad. Instead I would shower him with love and preach to him, but not to the point of shoving done Christianity down his throat. The bible tells us precisely not to do this.

Good luck to you and your future offspring then. I hope you live up to your promise.

Like I said, I'm way beyond whatever religion preaches. I don't believe in having a moral authority that guides me. It's insulting to me to think of myself that way. I'm way more prideful for that. So yeah.

Thanks for your sharing your thoughts though.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I recommend the works of Soren Kirkegaard to you. Read some of his stuff, way better than that Joyce character you seem to admire.

Kierkegaard is terrible. No one should fear a just being. No one should believe something contrary to what reason tells them to be true - is that even really possible?

[Metamorph]

Kierkegaard is terrible. No one should fear a just being. No one should believe something contrary to what reason tells them to be true - is that even really possible?

Kierkegaard is why religion nowadays is so terrible. You reminded me that ages ago I read a blog from a Catholic (they're actually not all insane and I apologize for being like "What's a ridiculous parody of religion in real life? How about Catholicism!" based on knowing only insane ones personally) criticizing Kierkegaard for changing the whole way religion is discussed in culture from being about 1. going to church/group membership and 2. reason, morality, etc. and replacing it all with a psychological ridiculous drama. I still wouldn't want to be a Christian, even a Unitarian, in a pre-Kierkegaard world since I don't see the point personally, but I would have a lot more respect for them in general, and even have more respect for the outright bad ones oddly.

[Investigator]

Good luck to you and your future offspring then. I hope you live up to your promise.

Like I said, I'm way beyond whatever religion preaches. I don't believe in having a moral authority that guides me. It's insulting to me to think of myself that way. I'm way more prideful for that. So yeah.

Thanks for your sharing your thoughts though.

Luck has nothing to do with it. Promises like this aren’t hard to keep unless one doesn’t truly walk with God.

I preach no religion. The robotic practices of being in religion get in the way of having authentic relationship with God.

We all have pride to some degree, but don’t let it be the deciding factor in your life. That goes for Christians and non Christians alike.

Kierkegaard is terrible. No one should fear a just being. No one should believe something contrary to what reason tells them to be true - is that even really possible?

Your belief in your unverifiable truths is outstanding. I mean you are entitled to have these beliefs, but don’t trick the masses by calling your beliefs, reason. My best wishes to you.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Your belief in your unverifiable truths is outstanding. I mean you are entitled to have these beliefs, but don’t trick the masses by calling your beliefs, reason. My best wishes to you.

What do you mean by unverifiable? Is there such a thing as a verifiable truth? Which beliefs do you refer to?

[Metamorph]

How to have an authentic relationship with God: dwell in the basement with an unwashed anime T-shirt, armpits full of crumbs, and sticky hands so no one will come near your relationship with God.

[Investigator]

What do you mean by unverifiable? Is there such a thing as a verifiable truth? Which beliefs do you refer to?

What beliefs?

For a start, there is no evidence that the universe is fundamentally causal. For me, I see no reason to make a conclusion about something which is indeterminable.

Belief, as there is strong reason for the principle of causality.

It isn't a matter of loving science - I don't see any superior way of improving knowledge than the scientific method. (I suppose it is hard to argue against those who point out that as nothing about the physical world can be known for certain therefore "science" (as though it was some animate force) cannot be said to be more valid than other fields, other than to simply say that we get increasingly brilliant results.

I think that there is certainly an issue with research determined uninteresting not being published and with research from inadequate sample sizes being too frequently cited in the popular media. Ultimately, we should only believe something proportionate to the strength of the evidence that is available.

As I understand, if something is eternal, it does not have a cause. Causality may appear to exist within the universe, but we cannot infer anything outside the universe, including whether the universe had a cause.

Believing rationalism doesn’t extend pass the universe is not logical, it is just signing your brain away to philosophical skepticism.

No it doesn't. There is no such rule.

The law of conservation of energy says that in an isolated system, energy remains constant. The laws of thermodynamics state that in an isolated system, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the universe can only have a cause if is not an isolated system. But if that is true, then the universe does not represent the whole - which in my understanding of what is meant by universe is contrary to its definition.

This is probably the worst comment you have made thus far. If Science couldn’t presuppose PSP, then none of its conclusions could be passed off as laws. Your thoughts aren’t as neat and logical as you think there are. I won’t get into the flawed “isolated system” argument, because you have proven to me you don’t understand your own words.

The leg work was worth it because you are a fool masked as a pragmatist.

[Ryan]

Luck has nothing to do with it. Promises like this aren’t hard to keep unless one doesn’t truly walk with God.

I preach no religion. The robotic practices of being in religion get in the way of having authentic relationship with God.

We all have pride to some degree, but don’t let it be the deciding factor in your life. That goes for Christians and non Christians alike.

Lol, did you just take everything I said literally? This isn't a showdown. I was trying to be nice.

I also love how you are still trying to preach/debate when I said I don't care about god. It makes your words look empty. I'm already feeling sorry for your kid. Haha. I'm hoping you are still young though and you will get over yourself eventually.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

What beliefs?

You said I call my beliefs "reason". Which beliefs were you refering to?

Belief, as there is strong reason for the principle of causality.

As the universe having a cause is unfalsifiable, this cannot be true.

Believing rationalism doesn’t extend pass the universe is not logical, it is just signing your brain away to philosophical skepticism.

You cannot meaningfully make conclusions about what is beyond observation.

This is probably the worst comment you have made thus far. If Science couldn’t presuppose PSP, then none of its conclusions could be passed off as laws. Your thoughts aren’t as neat and logical as you think there are. I won’t get into the flawed “isolated system” argument, because you have proven to me you don’t understand your own words.

The leg work was worth it because you are a fool masked as a pragmatist.

They're called laws because they are absolutely true for a system that is fully understood for the applicable law. They cannot be said to be true when they is no prospect of them being proved true. You cannot presuppose that everything has a cause, because everything has not been observed to have a cause. Instead of saying "The universe must have a cause." a scientist should ask "Does the universe have a cause, and if so, what is it?".

[Metamorph]

@Investigator, rationalism isn't philosophical skepticism and as Subteigh hasn't once endorsed or even mentioned Descartes I don't think he's a philosophical rationalist either. When I say skeptic I mean scientific skepticism, not epistemological skepticism.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I agree that the "principle of sufficient reason" exists within Nature, but that is a redundant and convoluted notion that only allows itself to be used by those who wish to "prove" that Nature has a cause. If you have an isolated system such as the Universe/Nature, you have something that be could be described absolutely by an observer (i.e. determining the laws of nature), and thus every cause and effect within it. But such an observer could not then say that Nature also has a cause, given that they could not make such an observation.

I would say an axiom of science is that it must be based on observation, not supposition. You may disagree with that axiom, but it should be self-evident that if there is such a thing as knowledge about the phenomenal world, it must come from observation and not supposition.

Despite my view that causality exists in Nature, I am aware of the theory that the universe is holographic and that time is merely an illusion. Thus it may be better to say I find the idea of causality useful for describing Nature, even if it may not be correct (it may not be falsifiable either).

[Metamorph]

I think 1. time exists 2. some things have causes and some things don't. 3. while we're on it, event-causal libertarian free will is a dumb idea, and libertarianism in general is dumb since there are at least occasionally optimistic deterministic cases where you have to do what you want to do.

[Metamorph]

I have good reason to believe non-deterministic free will, deterministic free will, and determinism overriding will, and the not-often-discussed non-determinism overriding free will all occur, but no one here seems able to discuss that except maybe Subteigh, Grendel, and sbbds so that would be pointless.

For one, if I can't choose whether I want my personal will to be aligned with determinism or not, can it be free?

[Metamorph]

Wilhelm Meister's Post-Punk Years

[Metamorph]

This whole argument revolves around so many issues defining causality and determinism. Aristotle for example considered teleology a cause but most of this argument has revolved around efficient causes being the definition of causes. Arguing God is the primary cause in an Aristotelian sense is very different metaphysically than arguing God is playing invisible billiards with the Universe. Einstein said God doesn't play dice with the Universe, and I'm going to argue God doesn't play billiards with the Universe either.

[Metamorph]

Wow, it's almost like people who sit around pressing buttons on a computer keyboard or video game controller and arguing with people all day imagine some guy called God is off doing the same thing.

[End]

Kierkegaard is terrible. No one should fear a just being. No one should believe something contrary to what reason tells them to be true - is that even really possible?

Ok, fearing a "Just" being. Let us suppose there is a verifiable "God of Justice". It exists, everyone's aware of it. Now tell me, are you totally and completely OK with going before it and asking it to "judge" your life and your works? Are you totally and completely without any "fear" of that prospect? Note: You are not fully aware of/are in fact incapable of comprehending what true "justice" is. You have an idea yeah, but you also know that the idea you have is finite and has no comprehension of the infinite that only a "god" (that you most certainly are not and can never be) can grasp in such a way as to make this a "logical" decision.

You might be able to make a "leap of faith" and it may well work out well for you, but it was just that, a leap of faith. By the way, I read a fictional story recently that basically has this very question as its plot. Guess the author and story and I'll be quite surprised .

A humble request from me: Read the Book of Job beginning to end, then come back to me with your thoughts. I am most curious.

[End]

How to have an authentic relationship with God: dwell in the basement with an unwashed anime T-shirt, armpits full of crumbs, and sticky hands so no one will come near your relationship with God.

Hahah, come now, that's basic bitch levels of trolling. I expect better out of you @coeruleum. I mean, I'm already living rent-free in your head with minimal effort. Surely ye can do better than this, at least measure up to being a tenth of an Arian or Cathar .

[Metamorph]

Ok, fearing a "Just" being. Let us suppose there is a verifiable "God of Justice". It exists, everyone's aware of it. Now tell me, are you totally and completely OK with going before it and asking it to "judge" your life and your works? Are you totally and completely without any "fear" of that prospect? Note: You are not fully aware of/are in fact incapable of comprehending what true "justice" is. You have an idea yeah, but you also know that the idea you have is finite and has no comprehension of the infinite that only a "god" (that you most certainly are not and can never be) can grasp in such a way as to make this a "logical" decision.

You might be able to make a "leap of faith" and it may well work out well for you, but it was just that, a leap of faith. By the way, I read a fictional story recently that basically has this very question as its plot. Guess the author and story and I'll be quite surprised .

A humble request from me: Read the Book of Job beginning to end, then come back to me with your thoughts. I am most curious.

Kierkegaard is stupid. You're just afraid of people with more developed intellects than yours, so you think wanting to understand what God does, if possible, would be Satanic. Your supposed church, Catholicism, is the one with official miracles approved by councils of scientists, so I'd have thought you'd be opposed to such nonsense as intentional self-delusion.

[Metamorph]

I read a different version of this story ages ago. Google is stalking me making it a Catholic newspaper's version. Many years ago I low-key admired Catholics for being seemingly rational between this and all the philosophy articles on First Things, which changed when I met actual Catholics. I'm guessing it's an America problem based on what I've heard about Catholics elsewhere.

Meet the atheist scientist who believes in miracles

This is not the one I read, since it didn't have any pictures and described the interesting process of verifying miracles by a jury of experts more.


New York Times opinion piece, for subscribers


This one cardiologist seems to have written a book on this. I'm curious and I'll have to read it.

[Metamorph]

Hahah, come now, that's basic bitch levels of trolling. I expect better out of you @coeruleum. I mean, I'm already living rent-free in your head with minimal effort. Surely ye can do better than this, at least measure up to being a tenth of an Arian or Cathar .

That was aimed at @Investigator, the only poster who used the phrase "The robotic practices of being in religion get in the way of having authentic relationship with God," but whatever floats your Kierkegaardian boat which probably doesn't float because you have to use your faith and leap.

[Metamorph]

you also know that the idea you have is finite and has no comprehension of the infinite that only a "god" (that you most certainly are not and can never be) can grasp in such a way as to make this a "logical" decision.

I've been doing calculus since 5th grade, so I'm a god, sweet. @Subteigh, do you know how to be a god too, and would you like me to try to teach you?

[Investigator]

@Investigator, rationalism isn't philosophical skepticism and as Subteigh hasn't once endorsed or even mentioned Descartes I don't think he's a philosophical rationalist either. When I say skeptic I mean scientific skepticism, not epistemological skepticism.

Again, you misuse technical terminology, but I grow tired of making corrections.

Lol, did you just take everything I said literally? This isn't a showdown. I was trying to be nice.

I also love how you are still trying to preach/debate when I said I don't care about god. It makes your words look empty. I'm already feeling sorry for your kid. Haha. I'm hoping you are still young though and you will get over yourself eventually.

I am sorry that you perceived my intentions were to provoke a showdown, I was merely trying to clarify my stance. All the best my friend.

You said I call my beliefs "reason". Which beliefs were you refering to?

??? Did you read my entire post before typing this? Maybe you thought I meant that you quite literally said belief of yours was reason. I am saying that the things you pass off as reason were actually beliefs because they weren't completely pragmatic nor logical.

They're called laws because they are absolutely true for a system that is fully understood for the applicable law. They cannot be said to be true when they is no prospect of them being proved true. You cannot presuppose that everything has a cause, because everything has not been observed to have a cause. Instead of saying "The universe must have a cause." a scientist should ask "Does the universe have a cause, and if so, what is it?".

It is also very interesting that you haven't rebutted a single point I have made about the universe having a cause, instead you misdirect.

I am not sure if I should keep posting, because with each passing post that you two make, I wonder if you understand the conclusions of your own reason. The reason I wonder this is because you always come after the most airtight points in my rational when I wait to rebut the less airtight points. I sit back and ask myself "what are you doing?"

[Metamorph]

Skepticism (American English) or scepticism (British English, Australian English, and Canadian English) is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief or dogma.^[1][2] It is often directed at domains, such as the supernatural, morality (moral skepticism), theism (skepticism about the existence of God), or knowledge (skepticism about the possibility of knowledge, or of certainty).^[3] Formally, skepticism as a topic occurs in the context of philosophy, particularly epistemology, although it can be applied to any topic such as politics, religion, and pseudoscience.

Philosophical skepticism comes in various forms. Radical forms of skepticism deny that knowledge or rational belief is possible and urge us to suspend judgment on many or all controversial matters. More moderate forms of skepticism claim only that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about the big question in life, such as whether God exists or whether there is an afterlife. Religious skepticism is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)".^[4] Scientific skepticism concerns testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them.

I'm using a technical term with more precision than you. Scientific skepticism means not believing in testable empirical claims that haven't been tested using the scientific method. A god running around fighting chariots and parting the Red Sea is an empirical claim. A deist god or a god that's synonymous with everything, nothing, love, wisdom, or some kind of abstraction or even a concrete object or person is an ontological claim and can be argued for or against rationally. Scientific skepticism is not radical skepticism by definition since the scientific method is a form of knowledge. Ironically the only person I've met who denied the possibility of knowledge was a Christian who said I would have to be omniscient to know anything with certainty, so I can't know anything at all, only God can, which itself still isn't quite complete skepticism since they know only God can know things and God is omniscient, just not empirical facts or other logical facts. Then they went on to conflate deconstruction with postmodernism and Sartrean bad faith with bad forms of Kierkegaardian faith.

And complaining about my purported lack of precision in use of terms while begging to misquote Subteigh is having your sloppy irrational cake and eating it too.

[Metamorph]

If you're the person in this video: come back once you actually read a book. The Internet, as a textual medium, happens to be full of people who have, so you can't get away with "My level 4 Kierkegaardian cleric smites your level 3 troll warlock!" just because 16t doesn't feel real to you and you know no philosophers, especially when we're not troll warlocks and D&D spells don't work in forms of real life such as real debates.

[End]

I've been doing calculus since 5th grade, so I'm a god, sweet. @Subteigh, do you know how to be a god too, and would you like me to try to teach you?

Nice bit of mockery, but it reveals your ultimate ignorance of my point. I meant the infinite in the spiritual and transcendent sense, a kind of sense you dearly need to learn of and come to grasp I'd say. Again, Book of Job, give it a read if you dare.

Also, I wouldn't ever go quoting "Wikipedia" as a definitive source given how it can both literally be edited by anyone and the real shot callers over there have a... "bias" shall we say. It's in you and your kind's favor yeah, but still, don't expect anyone with a truly critical mindset to take it all that seriously. It can point you in a good direction perhaps, but in and of itself it's shit as any form of appeal to authority. I know you can do better than that, prove me right!

Finally, a question I just thought to ask. How old are you? This may be quite relevant. You know me, always working on several theories and datasets at a time. Your datapoint now interests me greatly, I have a hunch, wondering if you'll prove it correct .

[Metamorph]

Nice bit of mockery, but it reveals your ultimate ignorance of my point. I meant the infinite in the spiritual sense, a kind of sense you dearly need to learn of I'd say. Again, Book of Job, give it a read if you dare.

Also, I wouldn't ever go quoting "Wikipedia" as a definitive source given how it can both literally be edited by anyone and the real shot callers over there have a... "bias" shall we say. It's in you and your kind's favor yeah, but still, don't expect anyone with a truly critical mindset to take it all that seriously. It can point you in a good direction perhaps, but in and of itself it's shit as any form of appeal to authority. I know you're better than that, prove me right!

1. There's no such thing as "the infinite in a spiritual sense," just like there's no such thing as "the number 5 in a spiritual sense" or "the method of long division in a spiritual sense." Yes, anything can have spiritual significance in the right context, but that doesn't make it unknowable.
2. Your whole argument has been one appeal to authority after another. Would you like me to extensively define the different forms of skepticism for you since you can't click Wikipedia footnotes and read the original sources? And seriously, I don't agree with their obnoxious Richard Dawkins bias on these kinds of articles that's literally created by an organized group of losers with no concern for truth either, but would would you doubt anything written on Wikipedia just because it's on Wikipedia? One might call you... skeptical of Wikipedia.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Ok, fearing a "Just" being. Let us suppose there is a verifiable "God of Justice". It exists, everyone's aware of it. Now tell me, are you totally and completely OK with going before it and asking it to "judge" your life and your works? Are you totally and completely without any "fear" of that prospect? Note: You are not fully aware of/are in fact incapable of comprehending what true "justice" is. You have an idea yeah, but you also know that the idea you have is finite and has no comprehension of the infinite that only a "god" (that you most certainly are not and can never be) can grasp in such a way as to make this a "logical" decision.

You might be able to make a "leap of faith" and it may well work out well for you, but it was just that, a leap of faith. By the way, I read a fictional story recently that basically has this very question as its plot. Guess the author and story and I'll be quite surprised .

A humble request from me: Read the Book of Job beginning to end, then come back to me with your thoughts. I am most curious.

If a being is absolutely "Just", they will take into account the exact nature of my situation and proportionately determine the extent to which I am culpable for my actions. So yes, I would be totally and completely OK with their judgement.

A leap of faith has absolutely nothing to do with it. I cannot act better than my own inclination except by accident, and I cannot force myself to believe something contrary to my inclination. Doing things contrary to what I believe to be true would rather be a leap of faith. If I don't follow my own conscience and senses, I certainly cannot trust myself to do the right thing.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

??? Did you read my entire post before typing this? Maybe you thought I meant that you quite literally said belief of yours was reason. I am saying that the things you pass off as reason were actually beliefs because they weren't completely pragmatic nor logical.

You seem to think reason and belief are necessarily two completely different things.

It is also very interesting that you haven't rebutted a single point I have made about the universe having a cause, instead you misdirect.

You said that science cannot determine the laws of nature without presupposing PSP. This is false. Within an isolated system of known laws, causality necessarily follows. Otherwise, we cannot assume that causality exists: it is not possible to determine if the universe had a cause or otherwise. But this has no bearing on establishing what properties of the universe are universal - i.e. are laws.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I have good reason to believe non-deterministic free will, deterministic free will, and determinism overriding will, and the not-often-discussed non-determinism overriding free will all occur, but no one here seems able to discuss that except maybe Subteigh, Grendel, and sbbds so that would be pointless.

For one, if I can't choose whether I want my personal will to be aligned with determinism or not, can it be free?

In my view, it is not possible to determine if we have free will, but this does not seem to matter to me. (Would it be bad for example if I found out that I had no choice over my tastes and inclinations?).

[Socionics Is A Cult]

A humble request from me: Read the Book of Job beginning to end, then come back to me with your thoughts. I am most curious.

The Book of Job is the "only" book in the bible where Lucifer kills anyone, and "only" with Yahweh's permission. (In Jewish thought of the time, Lucifer was literally the devil's advocate, an agent of Yahweh designed to test people's faith: it was later Christians who made him out to be an enemy of Yahweh).

What can I say? Knowing you can prevent evil but then choosing not to do so is the definition of "evil" for me - but only an omnipotent being could truly "Know".

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I've been doing calculus since 5th grade, so I'm a god, sweet. @<a href="https://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/member.php?u=694" target="_blank">Subteigh</a>, do you know how to be a god too, and would you like me to try to teach you?

[Metamorph]

The Book of Job is the "only" book in the bible where Lucifer kills anyone, and "only" with Yahweh's permission. (In Jewish thought of the time, Lucifer was literally the devil's advocate, an agent of Yahweh designed to test people's faith: it was later Christians who made him out to be an enemy of Yahweh).

What can I say? Knowing you can prevent evil but then choosing not to do so is the definition of "evil" for me - but only an omnipotent being could truly "Know".

End's problem seems to be thinking his opponents haven't read anything when they've read much more than him. Let's all read Jung's Answer to Job while we're on a vaguely-Jungian site like this, but that's probably horribly blasphemous to End.

[Metamorph]

In my view, it is not possible to determine if we have free will, but this does not seem to matter to me. (Would it be bad for example if I found out that I had no choice over my tastes and inclinations?).

How can anyone choose their inclinations? I think 1. you can reflect on choices before you make them 2. will can have efficacy. Libertarian free will can exist if people want it, but it would always result in zero efficacy, so don't.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

End's problem seems to be thinking his opponents haven't read anything when they've read much more than him. Let's all read Jung's Answer to Job while we're on a vaguely-Jungian site like this, but that's probably horribly blasphemous to End.

I think that's unfair - I only saw that he wanted to highlight its particular relevance to me (in his view) - perhaps even if I had read it, he would not know the extent to which I remember it.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

How can anyone choose their inclinations? I think 1. you can reflect on choices before you make them 2. will can have efficacy. Libertarian free will can exist if people want it, but it would always result in zero efficacy, so don't.

But I could not even say that I "choose" to reflect.

It is clear to me that those who say we have free will are highly conditioned to seeing their environment as normal.

If I "choose" to jump up, I will eventually fall back down with no "choice" in the matter. With that in mind, I am doubtful that anyone believes absolutely in free will.

Theists often say that "God" can do whatever they like, as long as it doesn't cause a paradox. But how is that different from my situation?

Finally, how can I rule out the possibility that the whole universe is my will, even if I am not necessarily aware of it?

..............................


"Yes I have free will; I have no choice but to have it." ~ Christopher Hitchens

"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road." ~ Stephen Hawking

[Metamorph]

But I could not even say that I "choose" to reflect.

It is clear to me that those who say we have free will are highly conditioned to seeing their environment as normal.

If I "choose" to jump up, I will eventually fall back down with no "choice" in the matter. With that in mind, I am doubtful that anyone believes absolutely in free will.

Theists often say that "God" can do whatever they like, as long as it doesn't cause a paradox. But how is that different from my situation?

Finally, how can I rule out the possibility that the whole universe is my will, even if I am not necessarily aware of it?

..............................


"Yes I have free will; I have no choice but to have it." ~ Christopher Hitchens

"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road." ~ Stephen Hawking

I said I think free will is just processes following my two given conditions. Libertarian free will can't exist in reality. However, insofar as there is a self, it can have agency, have desires, and engage in reflection. Denying there's a real self, even without knowing fully what it is, is a recipe for disaster.

I hope this isn't too heavy of a thought, too challenging because of its simplicity. Thoughts like that are strenuous, and this is probably not the ideal context for them even for people who are more than willing and able to engage them.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I said I think free will is just processes following my two given conditions. Libertarian free will can't exist in reality. However, insofar as there is a self, it can have agency, have desires, and engage in reflection. Denying there's a real self, even without knowing fully what it is, is a recipe for disaster.

I hope this isn't too heavy of a thought, too challenging because of its simplicity. Thoughts like that are strenuous, and this is probably not the ideal context for them even for people who are more than willing and able to engage them.

I can only really say that is all a matter of opinion that probably cannot be resolved. But to paraphrase Wittgenstein because I cannot recall the quote, (in his aesthetic judgement) the things that are a matter of personal taste are the things that matter.

[Metamorph]

I can only really say that is all a matter of opinion that probably cannot be resolved. But to paraphrase Wittgenstein because I cannot recall the quote, (in his aesthetic judgement) the things that are a matter of personal taste are the things that matter.

Well, you couldn't have free will if you couldn't choose not to have free will. I said I believe compatibilitist free will is real, fate (as the absence of free will) is real and libertarian free will is not real but has influence as an idea though it's almost entirely destructive.