What “personal irrationality” are you fucking babbling about? 
What thread do you think you are in? Appeal to ridicule has been the one-note samba in very heavy rotation.
So if some jerk had been playing “The Hall of the Mountan King” dialed to eleven on his boombox, would symphonic music have been to blame?
If we have the ability to make our own choices (which I believe we do), then some people are going to choose to rape and murder. That’s human nature.
And in these two snippets, we return to a rhetorical trick that I object to: you keeping claiming that you know something (italics yours) that you also claim is not susceptible to proof. This amounts to special pleading on your part, since there is no other basis for knowledge other than that which can be proven, and you are reserving the use of “knowledge” in this exceptional sense to privilege the view that belief in God is different and better above other beliefs.
For the record, I think your personal irrationality sucks. It is not nearly personal enough, and, in your weaker moments, approaches lucidity. And it’s ugly too. So there.
DIO –
[qupte]Free Will can’t logically exist regardless. Decisions have to be either determined or random. Something has to make you choose. If it’s determined, it’s not free. If it’s random, it’s meaningless.
[/quote]
This doesn’t make any sense. A “decision” by definition cannot be random. If it’s random, it wasn’t decided. “Decision” definitionally implies a decider, a determiner. So your statement “decisions are either determined or random” makes little sense. Decisions are always determined, and decisions are never random.
“Something has to make you choose” isn’t an argument against free will, it’s just a restatement that free will doesn’t actually exist. If you assume that “something makes you choose,” then there is no free will. QED. But if you don’t accept the premise that “something has to make you choose,” then you also won’t accept the conclusion that free will logically cannot exist.
I agree that the analogies should be used with a rhetorical purpose rather than just for gratuitous mockery. “I believe X” is not something I’m likely to take issue with and I feel no particular compulsion to try to talk people out of being theists. It’s only when people either want to convince me to believe the same thing or make the mistake of claiming they can prove their beliefs to be true that I bring out the pixies.
badchad asked me why I haven’t endeavored to “eat tomndebb’s lunch” by challenging him about his religious belefs. The answer is pretty simple, because I don’t recall Tom ever claiming to be able to prove his beliefs are true or tring to proselytize anybody. It’s not like I’ve never argued with him about anything, I can remember at least one fairly recent debate regarding the translation/interpretation of a passage from Mark, and to some degree it involved issues regarding the historical credibility of that Gospel, but since Tom was limiting his end of the discussion to the specific historical and linguistic issues involved with that passage there as no reason for me to hijack that thread into a demand for him to defend his beliefs. If he were ever to assert something like “God wrote it, therefore it’s true,” then my army of leprechauns and Cthulhus would immediately be mobilized. Otherwise, it’s just off topic, distracting and self-defeating.
Heretic. There is only ONE Cthulu. And when he arises, he shall eat YOUR lunch. And also you.
This doesn’t make any sense. A “decision” by definition cannot be random. If it’s random, it wasn’t decided. “Decision” definitionally implies a decider, a determiner. So your statement “decisions are either determined or random” makes little sense. Decisions are always determined, and decisions are never random.
“Something has to make you choose” isn’t an argument against free will, it’s just a restatement that free will doesn’t actually exist. If you assume that “something makes you choose,” then there is no free will. QED. But if you don’t accept the premise that “something has to make you choose,” then you also won’t accept the conclusion that free will logically cannot exist.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not a premise which can logically be rejected. Something has to cause the choice. If nothing causes the choice – if nothing makes you “decide” – then all actions are random. If something does cause the choice, then no choice is “free.” You can’t have an undetermined will. Something has to get you off the mark. You already have to BE wrong to CHOOSE wrong and that initial stae of "being wrong’ can’t be “chosen” without getting into an infinite regression of choices. Ultimately, there still has to be an unchosen determinant (or else it’s random).
I originally wrote “Great Old Ones” but I wasn’t sure if enough people would know that reference…plus “Cthulhus” just sounded cooler. 
Dude. Look around. You’re in NERD CENTRAL. We’re the freaking HALL OF NERDS. And we’ve been making the “Cthulu will eat you first” jest in the Pit ever since Jack Chick did us the favor of inspiring it, lo those many years ago.
I can’t tell if you’re being disingenuous or stupid. Could it be only by chance that you snipped on the conditional rider on the second sentence of mine that you quoted? What I said of course, is “If instead the ultimate goal is be closer to God, to know that you are, and to have gotten there by choice, then the “happy sheep” universe is miles worse than this one.” I didn’t claim to “know” this myself, though I certainly believe it.
And I used the word “know” in this phrase to mean “to be self-aware,” to not only come closer to God and to be aware that you are doing so. This is a common usage of the word “know” which, contrary to your bizarre repeated assumption, means something other than “to have absolute, unassailable proof for.” Since I have already repeated disavowed any ability or intention to “prove” God it is nothing less than intellectually dishonest for you to apply your definition of “know=prove” to anything I say in this regard.
So just to be clear: I do not define the word “know” as narrowly and fussily as you. I do not use the word “know” only in line with your own personal definition. and I have no intention of adopting your own personal defintion as the only one I will use, or even the one I will use most of the time.
If you insist on reading meanings into my posts that manifestly are not there by applying your own personal definitions of the words I use, I can’t stop you. But it seems to me to be both facile and dishonest for you to then take offense at what you yourself insist I must have said.
I didn’t say “you” were. I said some scholars are. I’ve seen stuff on TV and in books to that effect. Biblical scholars who aren’t believers come to mind. Scientists who study the origins of the universe sometimes do, as well. To say that “God is definitionally outside the realm of proof” sounds much more like an agnostic statement. I would have to ask you why you believe in god if he is outside the realm of proof. To me, it sounds more like “I’d like to believe it’s true.”
All of that is based on us “knowing” that there was any other way. God would not have to give us an awareness of any other way to be. It would be literally care-free, with god as the child playing with toys (us). I still don’t even know why a god would create anything. There’s no reason for us to be created, other than for god’s amusement.
I guess it boils down to whether or not there is a purpose for us being here. I don’t believe there is, in the biggest sense of the concept. We can choose to make a purpose for ourselves during our time here, but it, like god, is a construct of our own doing. It’s a roll of the dice, per se, that we’re here to begin with. When the sun burns out and we’re all gone, the universe will have neither benefitted nor suffered for our participation.
Damn it! That’s what I get for multitasking. Can someone please fix that coding?
Just to check, Kalhoun, does this mean:
[ul]I can’t imagine taking a flamethrower to my local primary school
[li]I can imagine it, but God prevents me from attempting to act on it[/li][li]I can attempt to act on it, but God won’t let the flamethrower light[/li][li]I can torch the school and everyone in it, but nothing and nobody burns[/li][li]I can torch the school and everyone in it, but God fixes everyone and everything up a moment later and no-one is even conscious of having suffered for an instant?[/li][/ul]
Please let me know if this misrepresents your argument.
There we go again asserting as fact that God is imaginary.
Really? My inability to disprove B would imply that A and B have equal truth values? Who made up that rule?
But if you like, you can ask “Do you believe in Zeus? If not, why not?”.
There’s nothing disrespectful about saying that you can’t disprove the existence of imaginary beings. There’s a touch of question-begging in saying other imaginary beings, as it implies that the question of whether God is an imaginary being is already settled, whereas we both know that wiser heads than ours have spent much time and trouble on the subject. There’s plenty disrespectful about deliberately bracketing a sincerely-believed-in God with figures of ridicule. And if it gives you emotional comfort to call Jesus a genocidal murderous cunt, don’t let me stop you; but I can’t imagine what utilitarian purpose it serves.
Also, while saying “That’s not a knife, this is a knife!” makes for a good comedy moment in a Paul Hogan film, the mere fact that X is offensive doesn’t make Y respectful, does it?
I understand perfectly, thanks, but as your philosophical point of view - that your every word and action is predetermined by circumstance - strikes me as a little unusual, I see no harm in asking for a little clarification.
Certainly, if you don’t mind telling me what the question has to do with my questions to you concerning predestination, or whether you mean to get around to answering them. I’m the kind of Christian who thinks the Bible is the word of God, but not the kind to whom absolute literality and inerrancy are an article of faith. There are quite a few of us about.
Or just don’t bother, Kalhoun. The debate had moved on by the time I got the feckin’ thing posted.
I thought you were on record as favoring civil discourse. Oh, you must have meant everyone else should be civil–you, of course, are exempt from your self-righteous calls for civility.
Your specialized definition of “knowledge” I also assume applies to others, as in “The vast majority of humans now living know Jesus Christ has nothing to do with God, and they know him to be a mortal and minor prophet at best and know him to be a fraud and quite possibly non-existent at worst.”
As a sign of your acknowledgement of respect for others’ views, would you mind very much adopting the sentence in quotes as your sig line? Thank you very much, Jodi.
No, wait! 
I respectfully ask Kalhoun answer that question (assuming you meant the first one in post
#675). I find the list of options you provided to be interesting ones. What is the answer to this, and where does free will begin or end?
Yes, it is a misrepresentation, though I’m sure not intentional. My take is that:
I can imagine it, but God prevents me from attempting to act on it - I would never imagine it because there would be no anger or mental illness
I can attempt to act on it, but God won’t let the flamethrower light
I can torch the school and everyone in it, but nothing and nobody burns
**I can torch the school and everyone in it, but God fixes everyone and everything up a moment later and no-one is even conscious of having suffered for an instant ** - I wouldn’t attempt it because there would be no motivator other than entertainment. But since there could be no negative consequence, it wouldn’t matter, so it wouldn’t cross my mind.
I guess the short version is that I don’t understand the purpose for man (or earth, or the universe) to have been created in the first place. There’s no need for us to care about anything, to think, to react, to worry. We would be less like biological beings and more like a toy box full of muppets. The possibility of a god vs. The Cosmic Fluke™, in my mind, makes us even less necessary than if we just sort of blasted our way into existence. If god is the boss, why have us? If, on the other hand, we could not help but to exist because of a series of chemical reactions, at least there’s a reason behind it.
No, that’s like saying the quality of an object is either objective or it’s subjective, and that if its objective the quality observed has nothing to do with the observer whereas if its subjective the quality observed has nothing to do with the object.
Which is not merely an analogy, but a related issue, btw. And both of them intrinsic to the whole god & prayer & etc topic.
The problem with determinism vs free will as commonly constituted is such constructs tend to erroneously treat the context in which the individual operates as if it were not reciprocally affected by the activities of the individual when the individual’s choices are made in (determined by) the context.
It’s partly an error of … oh bloody hell, error of construction, error of aggregation, what’s the damn term I’m looking for? — where, insofar as the entire context “world” is not made to be what it is solely as a consequence of the activity of the one individual whose free will or lack thereof is being thought about, the notion that the indivdual causes (determines) the context “world” is dismissed and we end up with the argument that the individual’s actions behaviors and thoughts are determined by the individual’s history and location in space time culture and etc.
And that’s wrong. At every split-second moment in time the context “world” is conjured into being by the interaction of zillions of component particles (including our individual).
There is neither free will nor determination, and there are both of them, or, rather, the truth of the situation can only be grasped when you see the entirety of reality as being simultaneously comprised by both just as the area of a rectangle depends on both its width and its length. That is to say, not additive but multiplicative, such that not one point or pixel or square picometer can be said to exist only as a consequence of length or only as a result of its width.