Richard Dawkins on omniscience & omnipotence

[felix dakat]

To me this feels meaningless. That can sound harsh, but that's not what I mean. I understand what you are saying, but I just think we overestimate what we can rule out. I can barely understand most experts, human ones. I feel very lost trying to rule out or rule in what a God can or can't do.

I was just trying to work out what is implied in the orthodox creedal statements logically.

OK. And I do think, in a sense, this should be done, to the extent those ideas are important to believers. I am not sure what one does with what seem to be the results, but it is worth noting.

I take note of them, and offer them up for consideration for what they're worth which depends on the judgment of the receiver obviously.

[Ierrellus]

If doubt gets you nowhere, try belief.

[Moreno]

If doubt gets you nowhere, try belief.

Exploration without deciding in advance seems to be a taboo. I will walk into your office and try X if you can show me the relevant scientific papers supporting X. I notice that people do not wait for such documentation for other important actions, but certain ones suddenly they will not engage until peer reviewed science supports something. Try it out 'as if'. See where the experience leads. If some (apparent) value is found, Explore more. At some point you may find you are living a belief and that perhaps this is having it. Or you may realize you lost interest. Either outcome seems fine to me and the process a rational choice if more intuitive than some are willing to admit they can be in other areas of their lives.

[Ierrellus]

Hi, Moreno,
Why should belief be the default position when it can be found in activities of genes? I'm with you on choice. The genes that give us a will to believe do not tell us what to believe.

[Moreno]

Hi, Moreno,
Why should belief be the default position when it can be found in activities of genes?

I don't think I've made that argument.

I'm with you on choice. The genes that give us a will to believe do not tell us what to believe.

I am not sure how useful it is to look at myself as determined or not determined by genes in this context.

[Ierrellus]

Hi, Moreno,
Why should belief be the default position when it can be found in activities of genes?

I don't think I've made that argument.

I'm with you on choice. The genes that give us a will to believe do not tell us what to believe.

I am not sure how useful it is to look at myself as determined or not determined by genes in this context.

No, others made that argument. I'm simply saying that determination of the will to believe by genes signifies what others may describe as the kingdom within. Although I'm aware that belief in tooth fairies or Santa Claus may be effective, these are afterthoughts coming from the will to believe. Does the idea of a will to believe as physical in any way prevent one from believing whatever they want to believe? I don't think so.

[Mutcer]

If free will is the power to freely make decisions, then I firmly have a very fixed belief that free will exists. I also believe there is a cause for everything - either direct or indirect. But I don't always care what this cause is. But trust me, there is no confusion on my part about the ability of a fully omniscient & omnipotent being existing. Just as it is logically impossible for 2+2 to = 13, it is logically impossible for something to be fully omniscient & fully omnipotent.

If there is a cause, and only one cause, for everything, for every one effect, then your apparent choice was but the effect, single effect, for a single cause.

I don't contend there is just a single cause. But to ensure we're on the same page, can you clarify if you're talking about direct cause or indirect cause.

There was no choice in the matter. Sure, to the person having the moment, it feels like...but don't they say the same about their Christian God, that it is something that they feel?

When I freely make an A/B choice - whether it be A or B - I have choice in the matter. How can one feel a Christian God when such a thing isn't even present in our world?

But, make no mistake Mutcer, if every cause must discharge an effect, then there is nothing free about your willing.

Now you have it backwards. Earlier we were talking about how every effect must have a cause. Now you're saying every cause has effects. But I guess you could say the cause doesn't become a cause unless there is some kind of effect. With respect to a freely make A/B choice, the result is the choice. The most direct cause would be my brain.

It is but the determined effect to a set of causes that escape your awareness, but which actually are the cause, the unwilled caused, of your apparent choice. Otherwise, if your will is free, detached from the history of the universe, and is an uncaused cause, then you are talking about 2+2=13. Either your will is NOT free, but an effect of brain states determined by invariant (hence no choice) forces (chemistry), or, not everything is has a cause.

I have free will to make choices - in which case the cause is my brain. Are you trying to say if I freely make a choice that there is no cause?

[Mutcer]

If free will is the power to freely make decisions, then I firmly have a very fixed belief that free will exists. I also believe there is a cause for everything - either direct or indirect. But I don't always care what this cause is. But trust me, there is no confusion on my part about the ability of a fully omniscient & omnipotent being existing. Just as it is logically impossible for 2+2 to = 13, it is logically impossible for something to be fully omniscient & fully omnipotent.

Not if God is reality Itself. If God is reality itself, than the facts that 2+2=4 is true and 2+2 =13 false would be the case because to be true is to correspond with reality. God would not contradict such facts because God's omniscience and omnipotence cannot contradict logic.

God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. I think I already clearly demonstrated that.

Logic and mathematical facts are true because they correspond to God's own being.

All that statement accomplishes is to help make it clear what you believe the term "God" means.

God cannot contradict God's own nature. For God to do so would upset the rational structure of the universe. Out of divine benevolence, God would not do such a thing.

If God nature is to be loving, then why didn't he save the people of Haiti from the earthquake? It seems God did contradict his own nature by acting in an unloving way (allowing people to suffer when he could have easily prevented it) when he's supposed to be loving.

[Mutcer]

If free will is the power to freely make decisions, then I firmly have a very fixed belief that free will exists. I also believe there is a cause for everything - either direct or indirect. But I don't always care what this cause is. But trust me, there is no confusion on my part about the ability of a fully omniscient & omnipotent being existing. Just as it is logically impossible for 2+2 to = 13, it is logically impossible for something to be fully omniscient & fully omnipotent.

Not if God is reality Itself. If God is reality itself, than the facts that 2+2=4 is true and 2+2 =13 false would be the case because to be true is to correspond with reality. God would not contradict such facts because God's omniscience and omnipotence cannot contradict logic. Logic and mathematical facts are true because they correspond to God's own being. God cannot contradict God's own nature. For God to do so would upset the rational structure of the universe. Out of divine benevolence, God would not do such a thing.

Gods can transcend logic aswel as morality and reality.

Please provide an illustration or example of God transcending logic.

[felix dakat]

God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. I think I already clearly demonstrated that.

Neither Jayson, Uccisore nor I think you have.

All that statement accomplishes is to help make it clear what you believe the term "God" means.

Right. Your acknowledgement that I have accomplished that shows that you recognize that the concept of God is coherent. Perhaps we're making a little progress after all.

If God nature is to be loving, then why didn't he save the people of Haiti from the earthquake? It seems God did contradict his own nature by acting in an unloving way (allowing people to suffer when he could have easily prevented it) when he's supposed to be loving.

We have talked about that before. The "greater good" theodicy explains those apparent evils.

[Mutcer]

God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. I think I already clearly demonstrated that.

Neither Jayson, Uccisore nor I think you have.

Allow me to illustrate again.
If God is omnipotent, he can make choices.
If God is omniscient, he will know what his A/B choice is prior to it being made
If God is omnipotent, he will be able to choose A even if his omniscience says he will choose B
- If his omniscience which tells him he will choose B compels him to choose B, then he isn't omnipotent, as he can't choose A
- If he is free to choose A when his omniscience said he would choose B, then he isn't omniscient.
Very simple.

All that statement accomplishes is to help make it clear what you believe the term "God" means.

Right. Your acknowledgement that I have accomplished that shows that you recognize that the concept of God is coherent. Perhaps we're making a little progress after all.

Do you believe God is a concept or an entity?

If God nature is to be loving, then why didn't he save the people of Haiti from the earthquake? It seems God did contradict his own nature by acting in an unloving way (allowing people to suffer when he could have easily prevented it) when he's supposed to be loving.

We have talked about that before. The "greater good" theodicy explains those apparent evils.

If God is omnipotent, then he can accomplish the greater good without allowing human suffering.

[Typist]

Please provide an illustration or example of God transcending logic.

The God proposal is of something that is above and outside the system of natural law. God transcends logic by definition.

This of course in no way proves that God exists, but it is helpful to actually the understand the proposal before rushing in to debunk it.

The debate might be summarized this way...

THEIST: Something called God exists outside of natural law.

ATHEIST: Nothing exists outside of natural law. Natural law is God.

Natural law is a collection of human understandings about how reality operates.

It's entirely rational to propose that these understandings would be limited and incomplete, given that human beings are a single species on a single planet, in one of billions of galaxies. What are the chances that a life form so small, and so very young (only recently living in caves) would have a full and complete understanding of reality? For myself, I would propose the chances are probably equivalent to the odds I'll be able to teach my dog algebra.

Again, this reasoning does not prove the existence of a God. But it does open up the possibility that human reason simply isn't capable of grasping everything. Thus, it undermines the atheist claim that human reason should be considered the final authority on this matter. It opens the possibility, perhaps likelihood, that something exists outside of what we call natural law.

Where theists get in to trouble is that they often try to use reason to propose exactly what that something is. The better theists content themselves with a word like "That" and then get back to the business of being amazed at how incredibly small we are.

[Mutcer]

Please provide an illustration or example of God transcending logic.

The God proposal is of something that is above and outside the system of natural law. God transcends logic by definition.

Provide an example or illustration of something which transcends logic.

This of course in no way proves that God exists, but it is helpful to actually the understand the proposal before rushing in to debunk it.

The debate might be summarized this way...

THEIST: Something called God exists outside of natural law.

Provide an example or illustration of something which is outside of natural law.

ATHEIST: Nothing exists outside of natural law. Natural law is God.

Sorry my friend. But you're talking about a Pantheist, not an Atheist. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Natural law is a collection of human understandings about how reality operates.

It's entirely rational to propose that these understandings would be limited and incomplete, given that human beings are a single species on a single planet, in one of billions of galaxies. What are the chances that a life form so small, and so very young (only recently living in caves) would have a full and complete understanding of reality? For myself, I would propose the chances are probably equivalent to the odds I'll be able to teach my dog algebra.

Again, this reasoning does not prove the existence of a God. But it does open up the possibility that human reason simply isn't capable of grasping everything. Thus, it undermines the atheist claim that human reason should be considered the final authority on this matter. It opens the possibility, perhaps likelihood, that something exists outside of what we call natural law.

Your theory that there is something outside of natural law called God, but which can't be detected using any available scientific tools is no different than Russell's Teapot.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Where theists get in to trouble is that they often try to use reason to propose exactly what that something is. The better theists content themselves with a word like "That" and then get back to the business of being amazed at how incredibly small we are.

And your point?

[omar]

Hello Mutcer-

--- I don't contend there is just a single cause. But to ensure we're on the same page, can you clarify if you're talking about direct cause or indirect cause.
O- It is not relevant to differentiatiate between the two. Direct cause acts upon the immediate object. An indirect cause acts on a third party which then discharges upon the second. I punch you, you get mad. Direct cause. I slept with your wife...indirect cause. But the point here is effectivity. A cause can be defined as: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. A choice that is free cannot be caused because it could have exhibited a different effect to the same cause. But according to the laws of science this is impossible, and if you feel that to be the case then that is just an illusion. More on this later.

--- When I freely make an A/B choice - whether it be A or B - I have choice in the matter. How can one feel a Christian God when such a thing isn't even present in our world?
O- Good science says that you have no choice in the matter. That this is an illusion. So I ask you, how can you feel that you have a choice, when such a thing, in reality, does not exist?

--- Now you have it backwards. Earlier we were talking about how every effect must have a cause. Now you're saying every cause has effects.
O- If it known as a cause it is because it has an effect, a single, invariable, dicernable, effect.

--- But I guess you could say the cause doesn't become a cause unless there is some kind of effect. With respect to a freely make A/B choice, the result is the choice. The most direct cause would be my brain.
O- Is the state of your brain your choice? No. You are born with it. You can't choose your parents, so to speak. The state of your brain follows causal laws, doesn't it? It is at any given moment in a given state, which is a given cause. As such, this brain state discharges a single effect, not an A,B or maybe C, but only one of them. To the stream of consciousness it could seem as if A, B and C are available as open choices, but even consciousness is an effect for a given brain state. It hides the underlying puppeter strings, it is a puppet itself. The scientific truth is, poor Mutcer, that your will is not free, but determined by whatever is happening in your brain at a given moment and this brain of yours is not determined by you but you are determined by it. Therefore the choices you think you make are in fact already made and it was never a choice, but a foregone conclusion awaiting only time to developed and discharge.

--- I have free will to make choices - in which case the cause is my brain. Are you trying to say if I freely make a choice that there is no cause?
O- Or your would destroy the basis of science. What you propose is that a single cause, "you", can have multiple and unpredictable effects. 2+2, in such a case, can equal 4, as well as 13, if indeed your will is free and not an illusion.

[Mutcer]

Hello Mutcer-

--- I don't contend there is just a single cause. But to ensure we're on the same page, can you clarify if you're talking about direct cause or indirect cause.
O- It is not relevant to differentiatiate between the two. Direct cause acts upon the immediate object. An indirect cause acts on a third party which then discharges upon the second. I punch you, you get mad. Direct cause. I slept with your wife...indirect cause. But the point here is effectivity. A cause can be defined as: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. A choice that is free cannot be caused because it could have exhibited a different effect to the same cause. But according to the laws of science this is impossible, and if you feel that to be the case then that is just an illusion. More on this later.

The cause of a choice which I freely make is my brain. If it's not my brain, then what caused that choice?

--- When I freely make an A/B choice - whether it be A or B - I have choice in the matter. How can one feel a Christian God when such a thing isn't even present in our world?
O- Good science says that you have no choice in the matter. That this is an illusion. So I ask you, how can you feel that you have a choice, when such a thing, in reality, does not exist?

If my freely made choices were an illusion and not reality, I wouldn't know it. But I'm over 99.99999% sure they're reality.

--- Now you have it backwards. Earlier we were talking about how every effect must have a cause. Now you're saying every cause has effects.
O- If it known as a cause it is because it has an effect, a single, invariable, dicernable, effect.

No issues here.

--- But I guess you could say the cause doesn't become a cause unless there is some kind of effect. With respect to a freely make A/B choice, the result is the choice. The most direct cause would be my brain.
O- Is the state of your brain your choice? No.

If "state of your brain" encompasses freely made choices, then the state of one's brain includes choices. Please define "state of your brain".

You are born with it. You can't choose your parents, so to speak. The state of your brain follows causal laws, doesn't it? It is at any given moment in a given state, which is a given cause. As such, this brain state discharges a single effect, not an A,B or maybe C, but only one of them. To the stream of consciousness it could seem as if A, B and C are available as open choices, but even consciousness is an effect for a given brain state. It hides the underlying puppeter strings, it is a puppet itself. The scientific truth is, poor Mutcer, that your will is not free, but determined by whatever is happening in your brain at a given moment and this brain of yours is not determined by you but you are determined by it. Therefore the choices you think you make are in fact already made and it was never a choice, but a foregone conclusion awaiting only time to developed and discharge.

I don't know what you mean by "will", but when I make choices, they are freely made such that I have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the time the choice is made.

--- I have free will to make choices - in which case the cause is my brain. Are you trying to say if I freely make a choice that there is no cause?
O- Or your would destroy the basis of science. What you propose is that a single cause, "you", can have multiple and unpredictable effects. 2+2, in such a case, can equal 4, as well as 13, if indeed your will is free and not an illusion.

2+2 being equal to 4 and not equal to 13 is static in time. My choices aren't. They move from an unmade state to a made state. Before the A/B choice is made, I still can freely choose either A or B. If you feel such a choice is not made freely, then what mechanism is it that I use to freely make such a choice?

[omar]

Hello Mutcer.
As a believer in freewill, you are proving as closed to facts as Christians.

--- The cause of a choice which I freely make is my brain. If it's not my brain, then what caused that choice?
O- We agree. But is your brain your choice? Your brain is the cause of your choice, fine, but as a cause it has an effect, not several, otherwise it is not the cause, but one of sevral, each for different effects. If your brain is the cause of your actions then your actions were not in doubt, not free, not multiple choice, but were inevitable effects of the cause. You had no choice. There was no choice. One cause, your brain, led to one effect, your action, even ifto you, it all seemed as if it was all uncertain up to the moment you "made" a choice.

--- If my freely made choices were an illusion and not reality, I wouldn't know it. But I'm over 99.99999% sure they're reality.
O- Just as many are 99.99999% sure God exist.

--- If "state of your brain" encompasses freely made choices, then the state of one's brain includes choices. Please define "state of your brain".
O- the brain determined your actions, which in turn seemed like choices to you, but you did not determined your brain. You, and even the illusion of a choice, are effects of your brain. A given state determines a given effect, so there is no inclusion of choice, only the subjective illusion of choice.

--- I don't know what you mean by "will", but when I make choices, they are freely made such that I have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the time the choice is made.
O- "I"? You already said that YOUR BRAIN is the CAUSE. Why do you insist on bringing around this "I make" or "I have"? We are talking about causes, and what you have said is that your brain is the cause. The subjective, this "I", is another effect of your brain. The activity of which are only illusions, as it is not a cause but an effect.

--- 2+2 being equal to 4 and not equal to 13 is static in time.
O- So are the laws of nature that govern the material you call "brain".

--- My choices aren't.
O- Scientifically incorrect.

--- They move from an unmade state to a made state. Before the A/B choice is made, I still can freely choose either A or B.
O- It seems that way to you, but this is an illusion.

--- If you feel such a choice is not made freely, then what mechanism is it that I use to freely make such a choice?
O- "You" use no mechanism. You are an effect of conditions that precede your subjective idea that there is a "you". You are not even a cause. You are the subjective effect of a material effect.

[James S Saint]

Do you believe God is a concept or an entity?

Every entity is represented by a concept. But not every concept represents an actual entity.
To be "actual"/"real", the entity must have affect upon the universe.

[Moreno]

Mutcer, if you want you can respond to
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=179555#p2324093

especially the direct and indirect cause question, but responses to other parts are welcome.

[felix dakat]

If God is omnipotent, he can make choices.
If God is omniscient, he will know what his A/B choice is prior to it being made
If God is omnipotent, he will be able to choose A even if his omniscience says he will choose B
- If his omniscience which tells him he will choose B compels him to choose B, then he isn't omnipotent, as he can't choose A
- If he is free to choose A when his omniscience said he would choose B, then he isn't omniscient.
Very simple.

God is fundamentally logical and so by nature does not contradict itself. Contradiction is a logical mistake which doesn't exist in reality, God is reality. Your proposition is nonsense, unintelligible gibberish.

Do you believe God is a concept or an entity?

God is a concept. God is not an entity. God is the being of every entity.

If God is omnipotent, then he can accomplish the greater good without allowing human suffering.

Again, in principle no contradiction can exist within God's nature because of God's ultimate perfection. Therefore, your proposition is self-contradictory nonsense.

[Mutcer]

Hello Mutcer.
As a believer in freewill, you are proving as closed to facts as Christians.

Facts and theories are two different things. While I might reject certain theories - such as the existence of Bigfoot or the tooth fairy - I don't reject facts - such as the presence of my computer in front of me or the waves crashing on the coastline which I see first hand periodically.

--- The cause of a choice which I freely make is my brain. If it's not my brain, then what caused that choice?
O- We agree. But is your brain your choice?

My brain is my brain. A choice is something I do with my brain. Asking if my brain is my choice is like asking if my car is tires rotating and gears shifting.

Your brain is the cause of your choice, fine, but as a cause it has an effect, not several, otherwise it is not the cause, but one of sevral, each for different effects.

Not every cause has only one effect. In the case of my brain, there are plenty of effects. Where/how did you get the idea that each cause can have only one effect?

If your brain is the cause of your actions then your actions were not in doubt, not free, not multiple choice, but were inevitable effects of the cause. You had no choice. There was no choice. One cause, your brain, led to one effect, your action, even ifto you, it all seemed as if it was all uncertain up to the moment you "made" a choice.

Incorrect. The cause of me being able to make free will choices is my brain. If it is not my brain, then what is it?

--- If my freely made choices were an illusion and not reality, I wouldn't know it. But I'm over 99.99999% sure they're reality.
O- Just as many are 99.99999% sure God exist.

But they have not had first hand encounters with God, while myself and you - not to mention every Christian - has had first hand experience with exercising freely made choices.

--- If "state of your brain" encompasses freely made choices, then the state of one's brain includes choices. Please define "state of your brain".
O- the brain determined your actions, which in turn seemed like choices to you, but you did not determined your brain. You, and even the illusion of a choice, are effects of your brain. A given state determines a given effect, so there is no inclusion of choice, only the subjective illusion of choice.

Please guide me to an unbiased scientific study which shows we are automatons without the ability to make free choices - and then I will move from believing what you just said is 100% BS.

--- I don't know what you mean by "will", but when I make choices, they are freely made such that I have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the time the choice is made.
O- "I"? You already said that YOUR BRAIN is the CAUSE. Why do you insist on bringing around this "I make" or "I have"? We are talking about causes, and what you have said is that your brain is the cause. The subjective, this "I", is another effect of your brain. The activity of which are only illusions, as it is not a cause but an effect.

Once again, the brain is the cause. The indirect effect is the choice and the direct effect is the ability to make the choice.

--- 2+2 being equal to 4 and not equal to 13 is static in time.
O- So are the laws of nature that govern the material you call "brain".

--- My choices aren't.
O- Scientifically incorrect.

Guide me to an unbiased scientific study which shows we are automatons.

--- They move from an unmade state to a made state. Before the A/B choice is made, I still can freely choose either A or B.
O- It seems that way to you, but this is an illusion.

--- If you feel such a choice is not made freely, then what mechanism is it that I use to freely make such a choice?
O- "You" use no mechanism. You are an effect of conditions that precede your subjective idea that there is a "you". You are not even a cause. You are the subjective effect of a material effect.

Again, guide me to an unbiased scientific study which shows we are automatons.

[omar]

Hello Mutcer,

--- My brain is my brain.
O- Understood. The question is what is your mind. We can do test of your brain. But where is your mind? Or is it just a funny name to what happens in your brain? Is the mind just another word for soul, and likewise, in your view, if you were consistent, another myth?

--- A choice is something I do with my brain.
O- You do nothing. Do you remember everything? Have you lost ever a pair of keys? Do thoughts keep you up at night? These are common occurences for many people, expected because there is no soul, no contiguous experience, but simply chemical states of your brain that are beyond your control. It is affected and by rule, it affects "you", the "I", subjective experience. It is not what you do to your brain but what your brain does to you. Of course you can affect the chemical balance of your brain by what you put in your blood, but then the effects are not a choice, and that is my point, that whichever the state of the brain, the mind follows. Drink and it changes your behaviour, and determines the character of your choices. Even if they remain subjectively "choices", the remain the inevitable result, effect, of a brain state.

--- Asking if my brain is my choice is like asking if my car is tires rotating and gears shifting.
O- That is a perfect narration of the myth I speak of. People like you think that subjective experience is objective, when it pertains to the self. You see your body as a car and your mind/soul, which is the height of ridiculousness for someone that is a supposed atheist, which you equate with your brain, drives it. Your brain is your body, however. You conceive it as a car in need of a driver, but any driver would only be an effect of the car, like an on-board computer.

--- Not every cause has only one effect. In the case of my brain, there are plenty of effects.
O- Sure. Now, is the number of effects random or determined?

--- Incorrect. The cause of me being able to make free will choices is my brain. If it is not my brain, then what is it?
O- Pleading like a theist for the existence of Intelligent Designer. What they demand for the Universe, you demand for your self. It suffers from the assumption that there IS something in your question to answer. There is no freewill, no choices, other than in their subjective experience. It is what you imagine there to be, not what is actually is. Should I answer a Christian "Who" created the universe? Such assumptions go beyond what is necessary for an explanation of why there is something or why you behaved in a certain way.

--- But they have not had first hand encounters with God, while myself and you - not to mention every Christian - has had first hand experience with exercising freely made choices.
O- Everyday they face the world, they face what in their minds is the work of God. In your choices all you face is the work of what you think is your will. Your will, in itself, makes no sensory appearance. And yet, for both Christians and Mutcer, what is not seen, but felt, has to exist.

--- Please guide me to an unbiased scientific study which shows we are automatons without the ability to make free choices - and then I will move from believing what you just said is 100% BS.
O- Funny that you have to qualify the character of research. You acknowledge then the existence of biased scientific study? We do what we subjectively wish to do. But our subjective itself is the result of a brain that is outside of what we do. It does us, we don't do it.

--- Guide me to an unbiased scientific study which shows we are automatons.
O- Automatons have no subjective experience we are aware of. That however simply adds the illusion of choice to an experienced self. It does not cause the objective existence of a random event, or brain state.

[omar]

Oh and Mutcer, if you want references check out Sam Harris and his book on free will. You know that guy right? He's the one making many of the questions you raise about God. He's far more consistent in staying true to the standard he used on religion.
Richard Dawkins can only make an emotional appeal to this belief. Can you scientifically demonstrate a choice? It would be equivalent to demonstrating something unrecognized to exist by the presupposition on which it operates.

[Mutcer]

Hello Mutcer,

--- My brain is my brain.
O- Understood. The question is what is your mind. We can do test of your brain. But where is your mind? Or is it just a funny name to what happens in your brain? Is the mind just another word for soul, and likewise, in your view, if you were consistent, another myth?

The mind is a function of the brain. It appears to be a word (some may find it a funny name) to describe what happens in your brain.



mind   [mahynd] Show IPA
noun
1.
(in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind.
2.
Psychology . the totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities.
3.
intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence.
4.
a particular instance of the intellect or intelligence, as in a person.
5.
a person considered with reference to intellectual power: the greatest minds of the twentieth century.

--- A choice is something I do with my brain.
O- You do nothing.

Not true. I am consciously aware of the choices I make.

Do you remember everything? Have you lost ever a pair of keys? Do thoughts keep you up at night? These are common occurences for many people, expected because there is no soul, no contiguous experience, but simply chemical states of your brain that are beyond your control.It is affected and by rule, it affects "you", the "I", subjective experience. It is not what you do to your brain but what your brain does to you. Of course you can affect the chemical balance of your brain by what you put in your blood, but then the effects are not a choice, and that is my point, that whichever the state of the brain, the mind follows. Drink and it changes your behaviour, and determines the character of your choices. Even if they remain subjectively "choices", the remain the inevitable result, effect, of a brain state.

Agreed.

--- Asking if my brain is my choice is like asking if my car is tires rotating and gears shifting.
O- That is a perfect narration of the myth I speak of. People like you think that subjective experience is objective, when it pertains to the self. You see your body as a car and your mind/soul, which is the height of ridiculousness for someone that is a supposed atheist, which you equate with your brain, drives it. Your brain is your body, however. You conceive it as a car in need of a driver, but any driver would only be an effect of the car, like an on-board computer.

You're going off on a tangent. You asked if my brain is my choice - and I responded with an analogy to show how silly that question is.

--- Not every cause has only one effect. In the case of my brain, there are plenty of effects.
O- Sure. Now, is the number of effects random or determined?

Seems more like it would typically be random. It also depends if you're talking about direct effect or indirect effect.
Cause: Hurricane
Effect: Wind & Rain

Cause: Wind & Rain
Effects: Damaged cars, coastal piers torn to shreds, power lines down, etc.

--- Incorrect. The cause of me being able to make free will choices is my brain. If it is not my brain, then what is it?
O- Pleading like a theist for the existence of Intelligent Designer. What they demand for the Universe, you demand for your self. It suffers from the assumption that there IS something in your question to answer. There is no freewill, no choices, other than in their subjective experience. It is what you imagine there to be, not what is actually is. Should I answer a Christian "Who" created the universe? Such assumptions go beyond what is necessary for an explanation of why there is something or why you behaved in a certain way.

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're getting at. But what is clear is you haven't identified something other than my brain as what you think is the cause of me being able to make free will choices. Or is it possible we're not on the same page as to what "cause" means?

--- But they have not had first hand encounters with God, while myself and you - not to mention every Christian - has had first hand experience with exercising freely made choices.
O- Everyday they face the world, they face what in their minds is the work of God. In your choices all you face is the work of what you think is your will. Your will, in itself, makes no sensory appearance. And yet, for both Christians and Mutcer, what is not seen, but felt, has to exist.

When you say "they", are you referring to Christians or to all people?

If God is a fancy word to describe what happens in our minds, then you're coming from a Pantheistic view. Are you a Pantheist?

--- Please guide me to an unbiased scientific study which shows we are automatons without the ability to make free choices - and then I will move from believing what you just said is 100% BS.
O- Funny that you have to qualify the character of research. You acknowledge then the existence of biased scientific study? We do what we subjectively wish to do. But our subjective itself is the result of a brain that is outside of what we do. It does us, we don't do it.

No surprise here. There obviously is no scientific study which shows we are automatons without the ability to make free choices. It appears to be nothing more than a theory of yours.

--- Guide me to an unbiased scientific study which shows we are automatons.
O- Automatons have no subjective experience we are aware of. That however simply adds the illusion of choice to an experienced self. It does not cause the objective existence of a random event, or brain state.

Once again, no surprise. I'm not asking what an automaton is or experiences. I'm asking for you to guide me to a scientific study. As you haven't, I can safely assume that there is no scientific study which shows we are simply automatons.

[Mutcer]

Oh and Mutcer, if you want references check out Sam Harris and his book on free will. You know that guy right? He's the one making many of the questions you raise about God. He's far more consistent in staying true to the standard he used on religion.
Richard Dawkins can only make an emotional appeal to this belief. Can you scientifically demonstrate a choice? It would be equivalent to demonstrating something unrecognized to exist by the presupposition on which it operates.

I'm very familiar with who Sam Harris is and in what ways he differs from Richard Dawkins.

[Moreno]

Not true. I am consciously aware of the choices I make.

That's an illusion of choice, a quale. How can your 'choices' not be caused by the matter in your body all of the actions of which are determined by internal and external causes, like everything else. Causes that go back all the way to the big bang. Everything you have ever done, you had to do. There were, of course, moments where it felt like you were choosing, but the result was determined long before you were born.