Happy Atheist Forum

If in the beginning there is only god, can he be intelligent? knowledgable? Of what? ( I think living things gain knowledge by interacting with the environment, it is also how we gain awareness and thought. )

Can he even be aware that there is only he?

Why would he need light? Is it dark when there exist only god?

If he created the universe, where did he put it? ( Since there is only god )

They say humans are made in his image, how did this image come about when there is only god? To what did he compare this image to call it his image?

Am I asking sensible questions?...

These questions are only relevant if you assume that (a) god exists. Since I'm an atheist these questions don't have any meaning for me.

Quote from: "Tom62"These questions are only relevant if you assume that (a) god exists. Since I'm an atheist these questions don't have any meaning for me.

Ditto.

Ditto as well.  I don't even think someone who assumes a god exists could answer those without just making things up.

while the questions are irrelevant or meaningless to us, trying to answer them should lead you, toink33,  to disbelief.  As there is no logical answer to any of those questions, and there are no "good" answers either.

Also, ask yourself this question, If god created the universe why did he put life on only one insignificant planet and then choose to only communicate to a select few 2000+ years ago?

Like your questions there is no answer to this.  None of the theist rhetoric makes any sense.  The reason for this should be simple, unfortunately for most it is not, there is no god.

Me too, that is why i put "If" into my questions.

I am trying to understand how christians' idea where in the beginning there is only god, how this is possible, how they can explain how when there is nothing, there is a god that can understand everthing.

I trying to understand christian idea of a beginning.

If as they say we are made from his image, does that mean god also have eyes, nose, ears, mouth, hands, feet?

If in the beginning, there is only god, what is there to see, smell, hear, eat, grasp, stand on? would it not be better for god to be a sphere or a cube?

It is because of questions like these that I come to believe there is no god.

It is sad, if people would only think more and question their god more.

Just this morning in tv, a woman was being interviewed,
she said "We follow our minister, whatever he said (or ask), he was send to us by god." ( my translation )
This woman probably give regular contribution to her church, she probably has little to support the education of her children, her minister instead own lands and mansions. They can't see they are being used.

Few days ago, a radio commentator asked everyone to pray to god and ask for strength to help the victims of bicol region which was hit by 3 calamities ( a volcanic event and 2 typhoons )
I wanted to yell at my radio at him, why if this god can give you strength not stop all these calamities before they can cause so much damage instead.

Quote from: "toink33"Me too, that is why i put "If" into my questions.

I am trying to understand how christians' idea where in the beginning there is only god, how this is possible, how they can explain how when there is nothing, there is a god that can understand everthing.

I trying to understand christian idea of a beginning.

If as they say we are made from his image, does that mean god also have eyes, nose, ears, mouth, hands, feet?

If in the beginning, there is only god, what is there to see, smell, hear, eat, grasp, stand on? would it not be better for god to be a sphere or a cube?

I think this is where the saying "God works in mysterious ways" comes into play for the theist.  Somehow not knowing these things about their God is okay in their eyes while they don't seem to think it is okay to admit ignorance concerning origins...God gets a pass in that department.

[glow=red][Topic moved to:  http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewto ... highlight= (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=296&highlight=)
so more Christians will see it...][/glow]

simple answer

in the beginning there was alot f tings. but certianly not a "god"

we are made in God's image because we are conscious and he is consciousness.

Well, that clears it right up!

Quote from: "easytrak"we are made in God's image because we are conscious and he is consciousness.

Well, at least some of us are conscious..... :roll:

Quote from: "easytrak"we are made in God's image because we are conscious and he is consciousness.

Hi there easytrak.
Could you elaborate on your point? Thnx!

Quote from: "Kestrel"

Quote from: "easytrak"we are made in God's image because we are conscious and he is consciousness.

Hi there easytrak.
Could you elaborate on your point? Thnx!

Yes, please elaborate.  If consciousness is what in God's image means wouldn't that also include animals; or at least some animals other than just humans?

That argument makes no sense to me.  I'd also like a clarification, please...

Animals are not in God's image because they are not conscious. They are like computer programmes, working according to certain input commands. But they do tell us about God because they came from Him. As an analogy, a work of art gives us insight into the personality of the artist.

---

God must be conscious, because we are conscious and we came from Him. Logically, God cannot give us something which He doesn't have Himself.

I went one further and said He is consciousness itself. If God were merely conscious like us it would mean consciousness is something bigger than God.

First off, being an atheist the question is rather moot. Secondly, one of the reasons i'm sure there's no god is that i seriously doubt that there's just ONE of anything.

Man created god in HIS own image.. We didn't come from him, he came from US. Leaves his consciousness somewhat in doubt, eh?

Quote from: "up2smthn"Man created god in HIS own image.. We didn't come from him, he came from US.

Man, I can't express how completely I agree with this sentiment.  When people criticize the religious god, they often wonder why god appears to possess all these human emotions.  A typical answer is that we are made in god's image, explaining the similarity.  But it rings hollow to me because the reverse theory, god is thought up by people, explains the same thing so equally well, and doesn't involve anything outside of regular work-a-day reality.  Occam's razor sort of slices this one apart, IMHO.

It certainly explains why his behavior and biases reflect those of the same time period in which the Bible was written...  Coincidence?  I think not!

up2smthn:

What I am trying to get across to you is that all things which exist had to come from something which is existence, is life, is being - in other words, a source.

MrE2Me:

Indeed the behaviour and biases of God in the Old Testament is much the same as the people of the Old Testament. But Christ is much different to the people around Him. So while this argument could work for the Old Testament, it is not the same for the New Testament.

You don't think the New Testament comes across as dated?  Pro-slavery, women as objects, etc etc?  It's all the word of God, supposedly, so...

Quote from: "easytrak"up2smthn:
Indeed the behaviour and biases of God in the Old Testament is much the same as the people of the Old Testament. But Christ is much different to the people around Him. So while this argument could work for the Old Testament, it is not the same for the New Testament.

The Jezus concept of a swell, great, nice guy isn't really helpful. In the end you are not dealing with him, but with his "father". He is the one who will judge you, according to your bible, not Jezus. If God is indeed the guy from the OT then I rather stay far away from him. Another point is that even the NT doesn't always portraits Jezus as the kind of ever loving, mr. Nice Guy. Read Matthew for example:

5:17: Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.
7:13-14: Jesus says that most people will go to hell
8:21: Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead."
10:5-6: Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites.
10:34-36: Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword."
11:20-24: Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching.
12:34: Jesus often called people names. One of his favorites was to call his adversaries a "generation of vipers."
13:41-42, 50: Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
15:4-7: Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it.  
15:22-26: Jesus refuses to heal the Canaanite (Mk.7:26 says she was Greek) woman's possessed daughter, saying "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs."

Is that the kind of guy you want us to follow?

Quote from: "Tom62"In the end you are not dealing with him, but with his "father". He is the one who will judge you, according to your bible, not Jezus. If God is indeed the guy from the OT then I rather stay far away from him.

Exactly!  Great post.

Quote from: "easytrak"What I am trying to get across to you is that all things which exist had to come from something which is existence, is life, is being - in other words, a source.

Does that mean something created god?  That kind of puts you in a pickle if you believe god created everything.

Man created god a couple thousand years ago because we had no reasonable conclusions based on evidence to explain natural phenomena. We gave the sun a personality because we had no knowledge of nuclear fusion and incandescent gas.

Quote from: "easytrak"What I am trying to get across to you is that all things which exist had to come from something which is existence, is life, is being - in other words, a source.

How do you know this to be true?  It seems to make "common sense", but modern science has drilled home the fact that "common sense" and "human intuition" are almost completely useless outside of our regular experience.  We have no "common sense" understanding of the interior of a black hole, or "intuitive knowledge" of a quantum event.

The origin of the Universe is much the same --- we can't explain it, and it's hard to even understand if our questions actually make sense (the most famous example being the question of what came before the Big Bang; if the Big Bang started time, there was no "before the Big Bang", so what does this question mean?).

MrE2Me:
Yes I do believe the New Testament comes across as dated by today's standards. But for the people of the time it was quite radically different. And a guy like Abraham was probably radically different compared with the people in his time, though by today's standards he would be considered immoral.

Note that Christ did not deliver comprehensive doctrine. Thus there is still room for improvement today.

Tom62:
The Bible is a difficult book to understand.

Let us take one example: God repeatedly states "He will judge."
God rejects no-one. It is man who rejects God. But why does God say He is judge? Because that was an analogy which the people would understand.

Some of your other examples:
Go only to the Israelites: They were too weak to go to the Gentiles. But they went later.
Send the sword: Often taking the stand for good puts you at odds with people.
Calling names: Perhaps because they were causing public scandal, they must be publicly rebuked.
Curse father or mother: Perhaps Christ is angry with the Pharisees because the Pharisees allowed a man to abandon his parents if he paid something to the Pharisees. It seems people who abandoned their parents were supposed to be put to death.
The dogs: It seems to be only a figure of speech, meaning: Do you want me to be for the Gentiles as well as the Jews? Of course, for us, to call a person a dog is a harsh insult.

Also, I believe that every human being has an eternal destiny, whether they live on this earth for 2 months or 80 years. It seems people die needlessly in the Bible, but that is not the case, for it is in accordance with their destiny.

Simoli:
If you think about it, that which is existence itself does not have to be brought into being. I would ask myself the question: How is it that God exists? The only explanation seems to be that He not only exists, but is existence itself.

Willravel:
I think if man were to "create" God, it would not be for objective purposes, but for subjective, for our own consciousness is more important to us than the fact that we inhabit time and space.

SteveS:
But we experience life on the subjective plane as well as the objective, therefore our regular experience of life can also include God since He is subjective.
At any rate, I don't think you actually have to see God to get an idea what He is like. You can't see a black hole but you can get an idea what it is like i.e. you know its there.
I think the answer to the time question is that you perhaps content yourself with the fact that God is all eternity at once, timeless.

Quote from: "easytrak"The Bible is a difficult book to understand.

You are wrong there. The bible is not a difficult book to understand, as long as you read it in context.

The bible was written many centuries ago by a bunch of religious people with morals that are similar like the present day's Taliban. Due to  the fact that so many people worked independently on it over many, many years, the book is incoherent and contains many contradictions. Not only that, the bible has been altered over the centuries to fit the needs of particular christian sects.  It is well known that many christian scholars were very inventive in the way they were handling their "sacred" texts. We can therefore find many examples of fraudulous behaviour in the bible.

The bible is therefore a flawed book. You cannot rely on its accuracy and you can't use it at a guidebook for moral behaviour. What is morally wrong in one verse, is approved or contradicted in others. It is in fact so flawed that even the christians don't know any more what is right or wrong. If the bible is so clear, why do have so many christian sects that all claim to own the truth?

The bible is a very convenient book to keep the masses under control. If a christian sect wants to justify immoral behaviour or forbid something, it is very likely that they find some convenient bible verses (slavery, homophobia, witch-burning, killing and maiming, everything is allowed if you know the right verses). When bible verses are used against christian sects, they are the first ones to scream "out of context" and "that is only an analogy and should not be taken literally".

Hi easytrak,  let's see, a couple things

Quote from: "easytrak"SteveS:
But we experience life on the subjective plane as well as the objective, therefore our regular experience of life can also include God since He is subjective.

I guess I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but couple it with

Quote from: "easytrak"I think the answer to the time question is that you perhaps content yourself with the fact that God is all eternity at once, timeless.

and it seems like you are just defining things so that they work.  I can't content myself with the fact that god is all eternity at once, or that I can't get an objective experience of god because god is subjective, because to me these are just explanations for holding what I believe to be an irrational belief.  I would need an objective reason to believe god is all eternity.  How can I possibly acquire this?  In other words, it seems to me like you are saying "If you wanted to believe, you'd be able to".  I don't doubt this, but I'm not wired that way.  I don't think I "want" to believe anything.  I think my beliefs are a consequence of my knowledge and experience.  I hope this made sense.

Quote from: "easytrak"At any rate, I don't think you actually have to see God to get an idea what He is like. You can't see a black hole but you can get an idea what it is like i.e. you know its there.

Exactly, but I "know" it's there because of measurable, consistent effects of it's presence, and they are effects for which we can reasonably claim no other known physical cause (i.e. when we see a star react gravitationally to what looks like empty space, why would we not conclude there is an object of large mass causing it, instead of some weird alien gravity ray for which we have never found any evidence?).

To apply this analogy to god(s) seems impossible to me.  What are the effects of a "faith field" or a "god field"?  And if the claimed effect is something like love or altruism, then how do you know that those affects are due to god(s) and not due to something else (evolved social behavior, for example) for which we already have some objective evidence?

tom62, you would agree if i were to say that the only reason the bible seems complicated is if you try to take it seriously. but if you see it as an absolute mess then you can understand the bible?

actually i don't really read the bible all that much. like you, i find problems with it. personally, i think the problems with the bible, particularly the OT, is the fact that it is very old and very primitive, in terms of grammar, theology etc., and yes, because it was written by many people over many years. still, i quite like the story of Christ, though even that i believe is written in a primitive style. it seems theology is improving over the years?

i do believe though that everybody has an eternal destiny, despite how meaningless life may seem for some at times.

as to the bible being used to brainwash people, well that is why people should think for themselves.

yeah i agree with you that when people try to form moral standards based solely on the bible they are doomed to faliure. the bible was written 000's of ya and those who try to make it relevant today have a difficult time. i don't really think the bible was written for that purpose, but the bible can assist.

so where are we supposed to go for truth? personally I think that truth is like anything. it has to be studied. you have to keep an open mind, and be prepared to be wrong at times. again, the bible is not entirely without worth in this instance.

---

steveS, when I say God is subjective, read "spiritual". we are spirits because we possess consciousness.

there are other things in this world which are subjective. courage is a subjective thing. kindness is a subjective thing. these are things which cannot be defined in time or space. the existence of God is like the existence of courage. it cannot be proven to actually exist.

evolution can only work on things which occupy time and space. consciousness does not occupy time and space. for instance, I cannot make you more courageous by giving 5mL of courage. that is why these things are not coming from evolution.

i know of course that when we think it is registered on our brains as impulses of electricity. that is because of the link between subjective (spiritual) and objective (flesh). that is also why a person who has brain damage can no longer think. you could argue it is because thought is an objective thing.

yes, you are free not to believe in God, and I think that is the whole reason why we are in this world. for if God were revealed, would you truly feel free? in this world, if you don't want to believe, you don't have to.

but can you truly find out what the true purpose of your existence is outside God?

easytrak, I like your comments regarding my previous post. I fully agree with you.

thanks very much

Hi easytrak, I lost track of this conversation (because I've been jumping into so many lately, ).

Quote from: "easytrak"we are spirits because we possess consciousness.

But, I don't think this can be asserted beyond all sorts of very reasonable doubts.  Until our science of mind/brain progresses to a point where we have a better understanding of what consciousness is, how can I accept that it must be spiritual?  I can't, so I don't.  I do, however, understand there is a lot left to learn about our physical existence.

When you say something like,

Quote from: "easytrak"the existence of God is like the existence of courage. it cannot be proven to actually exist.

This is kind of weird to me.  It seems like we're arguing more about what "existence" is, philosophically, then anything else.  What I mean is courage exists as a human judgment of actions.  It's an abstract concept.  Courage does not have weight, color, smell, physical composition.  I can't give someone 5ml of courage, but sometimes a few ounces of ethanol can inspire courageous behavior.  Courage isn't a physical thing, it's a type of behavior.  It can be said to have effects, as in it can inspire courage in others.  So, in this way, if god exists as "godly actions", and has effects, like "inspiring kindness or altruism" in others, then I could certainly agree that god exists in this abstract way.  We could call it "godly behavior".  But, this is far different than god existing as creator of the universe, eternal judge of morality, etc.

Quote from: "easytrak"but can you truly find out what the true purpose of your existence is outside God?

A common theme of mine is that I'm not sure there is any purpose of my existence.  If not, then I have a strong sense of freedom, because my purpose is whatever I make it.  I get to decide my purpose.  This makes me happy and helps me find peace and stability in my life, the same way a belief in "God" and "Jesus" helps other people.  Which is why I agree with you so strongly when you say we are free to believe what we want.  I would never dream of making atheism mandatory in a society.  Besides, it's really boring if we always agree with everyone all the time  :wink:  .

steveS, spirituality can and never will be proven beyond reasonable doubt in this world. otherwise people would feel compelled to acknowledge God and thus lose freedom.

I think you are asking me: Is God courage itself, or is courage something possessed by God? Maybe it is both. We speak of God as one and infinite, but we also speak of God as having an inner life i.e. the Trinity. So God as the source of all life is himself living.

Yes you get to decide the purpose of your own existence. Choose the best purpose you can think of - one that lasts forever.

To tag on to what SteveS said about 'purpose' to existence...

I can completely understand with the wondering if there is any purpose to it. I often wondered the same thing, although not any more.

The one thing I think we (humans) do too much of is anthropomorphize everything. I no longer wonder if there is any purpose to 'life', existence, what have you, because there doesn't need[/i] to be any purpose to it.

Purpose is a human construct. We're the only ones, it seems, that try to put human feelings or ideas to the rest of the universe in order to find meaning. I don't believe it's necessary, and in fact, is counter-productive to learning how things really work in nature. The history of science has shown that the more we learn, the less we need to put human attributes on the natural world.

Think about Victorian Era science, and how everything in biology and evolution was trying to be compared to the "pinnacle" of evolution - humans. They learned, through Darwin and others, that evolution isn't a linear process, aimed at making more and more complex forms. It just is what it is: change. More complex forms do evolve, but so do simple organisms, like bacteria and viruses.

I'll stop here before I wander off on too much of a tangent, but my point is that I find great satisfaction in knowing that I don't have to scratch my hominid skull trying to find purpose in my existence. I can just enjoy it, and appreciate it.

Hey McQ, thanks for sharing this.  This was really well stated --- I've been struggling with how to articulate the lack of purpose idea --- is it lack of external purpose?  Lack of absolute purpose?  Lack of divine purpose?  But putting it like this

Quote from: "McQ"Purpose is a human construct. We're the only ones, it seems, that try to put human feelings or ideas to the rest of the universe in order to find meaning.

is "spot on".  Anthropomorphization, as you say, is a great way to describe this problem.

Quote from: "McQ"The history of science has shown that the more we learn, the less we need to put human attributes on the natural world.

Exactly!

easytrak, you're losing me mate.  I'm having a hard time following this:

Quote from: "easytrak"I think you are asking me: Is God courage itself, or is courage something possessed by God? Maybe it is both. We speak of God as one and infinite, but we also speak of God as having an inner life i.e. the Trinity. So God as the source of all life is himself living.

I'm having trouble making logical sense out of some of these statements.  I wasn't really asking anything.  I'm just trying to point out that some of these god discussions involve an uncomfortable blur between "concrete" and "abstract" reality.

ok, fair enough steveS, forget what i said.

i'll say it again though, that i doubt there will ever be conclusive concrete evidence of God. that would diminish free-will.

---

mcQ i have no problem with your philosophy of enjoying and appreciating life. but don't you desire MORE?

Quote from: "easytrak"ok, fair enough steveS, forget what i said.

i'll say it again though, that i doubt there will ever be conclusive concrete evidence of God. that would diminish free-will.

---

mcQ i have no problem with your philosophy of enjoying and appreciating life. but don't you desire MORE?

Free-will, as it is used in the sense of most debates, is ALSO a human construct. Every time I hear someone start jabbering on about whether or not we have "free will" I have to get them to start from the beginning, i.e. DEFINE what they mean by free will. Until that is done, any debate over it is totally pointless.

As far as desiring more, I can't think of what you mean. When I talk about appreciating life, I'm talking the whole shebang. The smallest microbe to superclusters of galaxies. From the origin of the universe, to the the origin of life on earth, to the origin of the first Seinfeld episode, to whatever else I can think of. There is no "more" beyond "everything that exists".

I've looked for "more" if you mean "more" in the sense of god or religion, and found it to be a comforting lie. To paraphrase an adage, "I'd much rather believe an uncomfortable truth than a comfortable lie."

free will is the ability to control what things we live for and to what degree. i believe that it is influenced but not dominated by that pleasure we receive from those things.

isn't it true to say that no-one can really be sure whether God is a lie or the truth? the more important question perhaps is what is the difference between a world with God and a world without God. perhaps you could say that God was a comforting "possible" lie.

Quote from: "easytrak"free will is the ability to control what things we live for and to what degree. i believe that it is influenced but not dominated by that pleasure we receive from those things.

isn't it true to say that no-one can really be sure whether God is a lie or the truth? the more important question perhaps is what is the difference between a world with God and a world without God. perhaps you could say that God was a comforting "possible" lie.

That seems to be a very broad and thus, slippery definition of "free will. It's exactly why I ask that it be defined prior to discussing the subject. Too often have I found that either I or others have assumed a meaning of free will that is either too broad, or too different than others' definitions.

As to the question of whether or not god is a lie or truth, it depends on our definition of god too. For the xtian god of the bible, as written therein, I would say it's pretty east to know that it's a myth.

If you redefine god to mean something that started all existence and can't be pinned down, then it's more difficult. Do I believe such a being exists? No. Do I have proof no such being exists? No, but then again, it's not up to me to prove what I think doesn't exist. That would be analogous to asking someone to prove that santa doesn't exist.

So, in any event, we still would have to nail down and agree on what is meant by free will in order to discuss it without misunderstanding.

i would like to see how you define free-will.

Quote from: "easytrak"i would like to see how you define free-will.

Again, that is why I suggested that you define what you mean by free will. That way, we are not arguing about something we don't even agree on a definition of.

This is a topic gone over a great deal in internet forums, among other venues. In every case, I watched it deteriorate to nothing but name-calling when the term wasn't defined. I said your definition was broad. It is. Very. So it's hard to discuss. What I can do is put in some information shared on another forum by a friend of mine who elaborated on the topic. He is also a member of this forum. I don't think he'll mind me sharing this, and I agree very closely with what he discusses. So, what follows are two posts by Huxley (his forum name, not THE Huxley):

First post:

Free will is difficult to define because it can be anything and all you want it to be.

Consciousness and free will is, in my opinion, a manifestation of our big brains and the threshold is language. Whether we think out loud or write it down it is vast computation; constant examination of options and opportunities.

Whilst as sentient beings we know we will die but we now understand that our mechanical shells do not prevail; the DNA continues (if we leave children). We don't have cartesian type souls; no experiencer, just physical manefestation of all the sensory input. Free will is a common conception and as long as we do not mistake determinism for inevitability, we are in a good position, culturally and biologically to override much of the natural processes. Contraception being a good case.

It requires no knowledge or input of an imaginary creator; indeed all the evidence of our experience points to human intervention in the affairs of other humans. The universe isnt striving towards anything on purpose and neither is evolution of which we are (in this part of the universe) keen observers. I think if we understand that life has no 'meaning' other than what we attribute to it, then free will becomes a tool for thinking with, just as does morality and ethics. And I think all the faults we have tripped over and the way we have historically disposed towards one another points more to natural biological flourishing than the flawed fiat of an omnipotent being.

If I'm wrong then I haven't a bloody clue.


and a second post...

As animated, free moving, sensory creatures, we respond to stimuli and irritations and react accordingly. We have hardwired options far in excess of the hardwired instincts that simpler creatures exhibit. The strongest is the ability to project the future and assess the outcomes. We empathise, sympathise, calculate and experiment. A computer chess game does not 'think ahead' of what its moves may be. It responds to its opponent by a series, albeit a vast series, of pre ordained moves. If we are the chess program, we are a product of unintentional software expansion that calculates the moves ahead, considers possible outcomes, assesses the consequences before the moves and still retain the ability to completely ignore (should we choose)the conclusion.

We cannot arrest evolutionary pressure upon our DNA but the knowledge of evolution allows us the unique position of ignoring or defering it. Antibiotics and advanced medicine with technology is a fine example of our ability to prevent an evolutionary 'purchase'.

We identify these 'advanced' options, not in some hubristic way or without arrogance, as 'consciousness' and, in our case' free will'.

That's where it gets tricky. It is not a cut and dried issue that the universe 'knows' anything, or that there is a 'knower' or an observer. There does not appear to be any such thing as inevitabilty or predetermination. Of course, our 'free will' may be no more than an illusion to us, no more 'real' than our thoughts. Yet if it is a projection in some cartesian theatre, without an observer, it works very well and the illusion of being able to select which picture to watch, or criticise, in our own 'Multiplex' on a particular level, works practically, very well.

In some sense, if free will and consciousness is not 'real' or true, then in practical terms it matters not one jot. We still need to respond and to make our way around irritations and stimulations just like every other quirk of biological history. There is no certainty that were that tape of history replayed, it would play in the very same fashion. There is no certainty that there might even be a biology to speak of.


I find it difficult to talk with christians about free will, if they simply mean it in terms of a god-given (or withheld) attribute of humans. Since I don't start from the assumption of any god existing, then I don't follow free will as an attribute of us given by god. Make sense? If it is defined as the ability of humans to make certain choices, such as whether or not to sit up, walk over to the other side of the room, or type a sentence on the computer, I say, yes, we have the ability to make those choices, within the given constraints of physics, chemistry and biology. Some of our actions are regulated by biological processes via the autonomic nervous system, which we don't control (with the exception of being able to control breathing to some extent). I don't have the free will to regulate glands, or ion passage in and out of heart muscle cells, for instance. It's all done for automatically. But I can make the choice to reach for a door with one hand or the other, despite my left-handedness.

Anyway, that's a long-winded version of why I like to try and nail down definitions first. I hope it helps answer your comment on what I think of free will, easytrak.

BTW, as usual, I'm in a huge hurry. This is not spell-checked, reviewed, or otherwise carefully done!

i can understand why you would think consciousness is an evolved trait since you believe consciousness is of time and space. is that the fundamental problem you have with the theistic definition of free-will?

one question: if your definition of free-will is that it is a thing of time and space, how is it possible that you cannot escape belief in determinism?

Quote from: "easytrak"i can understand why you would think consciousness is an evolved trait since you believe consciousness is of time and space. is that the fundamental problem you have with the theistic definition of free-will?

one question: if your definition of free-will is that it is a thing of time and space, how is it possible that you cannot escape belief in determinism?

First, easytrak, you might want to let people know who it is you're addressing, by putting their names in your post. I have to assume you mean me with this.

Second, you assume I have a problem with the theistic definition of free will. I never said I had a problem, just that I wanted you to clearly define what you mean by free will so that I didn't assume you meant something else.

And lastly, free will, as generally described by humans and particularly by christians, is a construct made by humans. Period. Why do you think there's so much trouble defining it? It's because people make up their own definitions for it. Just pick the one you use and go from there. If you believe that free will is something outside of space-time, by all means elaborate.

But please stop assuming so much, when I'm just trying to get to a starting point with you. Let's try and get there first, ok?

I am sorry McQ. I am trying to figure out what it is you want me to say. Maybe you want me to give a concrete definition of free-will as opposed to one which is abstract?

Could you please answer this question though: Do you think we are in control of our own destinies, or are we slaves to our own desires and passions?

Quote from: "easytrak"I am sorry McQ. I am trying to figure out what it is you want me to say. Maybe you want me to give a concrete definition of free-will as opposed to one which is abstract?

Could you please answer this question though: Do you think we are in control of our own destinies, or are we slaves to our own desires and passions?

easytrak, I am not the one trying to give a definition of free will, I am the one asking you for clarification so that there may be a fruitful discussion. There are many definitions of free will, and I'm asking you which one specifically that you use. Only then can there be further discussion. The only reason I even gave the earlier "borrowed" information of free will was to give you some idea of why I think it's such a slippery topic.

I've said this a couple of times now, in a couple of different ways, so that you understand me. If this is too much, then I really can't think of any reason to go on here. I have very little interest in this topic to begin with.

As for your question of slave to desires...again, difficult to answer, because I don't know what you mean by "desires". If you mean our basic, inherent, animal kingdom instincts, then we have only that control over them that you already see in humans. We can't control autonomic function, but we can resist primal urges, such as need for procreation (although I rather like this particular one).

Human beings, sentient as we are, can reason, but do not always do so. Therefore, I hold the position that we can exert some varying degrees of control over certain "desires", but I don't have a clue as to what you mean by desires, so we may be coming at it from totally different perspectives.

hello McQ. the definition of free-will which i gave earlier is the best i can do. i know nothing of the internal mechanics of free-will. for me it is a case of accepting it for what it is. at any rate, i am glad that you agree we have control over our own destinies. if we are both agreed on this point, then i think that it doesn't really matter how we define free-will.