Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[Zhalentine]

Oh yes, and I'd like to see some evidence for this "free will" you speak of. If we are organisms, there is no explanation for "free will", merely the illusion of free will. Currently, the scientific evidence points away from its existence.

Please correct me if I am wrong, Adrian:

Your position is that free will is merely an illusion, i.e., we do not have free will.

It would then seem to follow from this:

1) that the only reason why you debate or discuss anything with anybody else is because you are compelled to based on your genetics, environment, etc.;

2) you have no reason to believe that anything you say could convince someone that you are "correct" in any position you take because the person you are talking to is compelled to think what they think also (unless of course you are compelled to believe such a thing);

3) there is no such thing as "correct", "right", "true", "correct application of logic" etc., it is only what a person is compelled to perceive/think; and

4) in reality, scientists are compelled to think free will doesn't exist regardless of what evidence they look at.

I guess that would mean there is no real point to any communication and it certainly diminishes (to zero)the weight of any argument put forth here on this forum.

I, for one, am glad we don't live like there is no free will. It would make a boring world (or maybe I am just compelled to think this).

My comments above were a bit "tongue in cheek" (I suspect I am missing some things regarding your point of view that would make my conclusions above not really apply). So my serious question, Adrian, is could you please elaborate on what you mean and how it works from your point of view?

I do not think that we have free will. When you look at very complex things very closely, it all boils down to the basics. Our brains are made up of atoms as is everything else. If you were to mix any strong acid and strong base together you'll get a salt and water because that is how the atoms react. Our brains are nothing more than very complex chemical reactions. In theory we should be able to predict what will happen, but because there are near an infinite amount of actions and reactions and other variables I do not think we'll ever be able to truly predict the future.

1) There could be an infinite amount of reasons for why he decides to debate, it is whatever stimulated his brain to do so.

The rest of the numbers are blatantly false.

haha I do not, in fact, have a problem with coincidence and I do not take offense or see ad himinem in what you said. However, I find my own definition of coincidence has brought me much more accurate and applicable results when going about my day to day life. This is because I believe in my own words as true, and put the utmost faith in them first and foremost.

You can define any word you want to have its own meaning to you, but that doesn't make your definition correct. The definition found in the dictionary is the definition accepted by the majority of people today. It doesn't matter how you define coincidence because I assume you go by the accepted definition, if you want to change the definition to fit your reasoning, then you are no longer using the word correctly.

B.) You still have failed to point out the original 'action', however. You must take into consideration the event and it's pieces as a whole, look at the bigger picture, and tell me where there is a more likely cause than God that set the chain of events in motion.

To do so is impossible. I have absolutely no way of knowing what was stimulating his brain.

D.) There appears to be no natural stimuli for my friend's having made the choices he did in the sequence he did, as I have already showed you where the definition of 'coincidence' could be considered faulty or to my use, and there still appears to be no original 'action' which he could have acted and reacted upon.

I don't care if there doesn't appear to be a natural stimuli or not. Does there appear to be a force acting on my calculator on my desk? It doesn't appear so, but actually the force of gravity is pushing down and the force of my desk is pushing up, along with any other invisible force acting on my calculator such as wind or anything else. Only your definition is considered faulty. Anything straying from the accepted definition is no longer a correct representation of the word unless we have both agreed to what we want the word coincidence to represent.


I didn't see the very last part of your post until I double checked your post and I already wrote a response so I'm just going to post it. I have a ton of homework to do and I don't know if I'll be on again today so just post a reply to this instead of editing your original post.

[Watson]

Oh yes, and I'd like to see some evidence for this "free will" you speak of. If we are organisms, there is no explanation for "free will", merely the illusion of free will. Currently, the scientific evidence points away from its existence.

Please correct me if I am wrong, Adrian:

Your position is that free will is merely an illusion, i.e., we do not have free will.

It would then seem to follow from this:

1) that the only reason why you debate or discuss anything with anybody else is because you are compelled to based on your genetics, environment, etc.;

2) you have no reason to believe that anything you say could convince someone that you are "correct" in any position you take because the person you are talking to is compelled to think what they think also (unless of course you are compelled to believe such a thing);

3) there is no such thing as "correct", "right", "true", "correct application of logic" etc., it is only what a person is compelled to perceive/think; and

4) in reality, scientists are compelled to think free will doesn't exist regardless of what evidence they look at.

I guess that would mean there is no real point to any communication and it certainly diminishes (to zero)the weight of any argument put forth here on this forum.

I, for one, am glad we don't live like there is no free will. It would make a boring world (or maybe I am just compelled to think this).

My comments above were a bit "tongue in cheek" (I suspect I am missing some things regarding your point of view that would make my conclusions above not really apply). So my serious question, Adrian, is could you please elaborate on what you mean and how it works from your point of view?

I do not think that we have free will. When you look at very complex things very closely, it all boils down to the basics. Our brains are made up of atoms as is everything else. If you were to mix any strong acid and strong base together you'll get a salt and water because that is how the atoms react. Our brains are nothing more than very complex chemical reactions. In theory we should be able to predict what will happen, but because there are near an infinite amount of actions and reactions and other variables I do not think we'll ever be able to truly predict the future.

1) There could be an infinite amount of reasons for why he decides to debate, it is whatever stimulated his brain to do so.

The rest of the numbers are blatantly false.

I will not start on the nature of free will itself, unless it is within context and relation to my points further down the line. To do anything else would be a complete digression from the initial topic, which I find to be all too distracting, really.

haha I do not, in fact, have a problem with coincidence and I do not take offense or see ad himinem in what you said. However, I find my own definition of coincidence has brought me much more accurate and applicable results when going about my day to day life. This is because I believe in my own words as true, and put the utmost faith in them first and foremost.

You can define any word you want to have its own meaning to you, but that doesn't make your definition correct. The definition found in the dictionary is the definition accepted by the majority of people today. It doesn't matter how you define coincidence because I assume you go by the accepted definition, if you want to change the definition to fit your reasoning, then you are no longer using the word correctly.

H.) But why use the dictionary definition when, in past experiences, said definition has failed to shed light on the experience in question? My own definition is based upon real life observance of coincidence as it has occured before me. It would be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You also point out that that definition is accepted by the majority of people as true, but remember, so is Christianity.

I.) And on top of that, I have outlined where the dictionary definition itself can be faulty and used against itself in contradiction. "happenstance (something which might have been arranged but is actually accidental.)" By it's nature, this definition rules out and simultaneously confirms that the perceived 'coincidence' could actually have been arranged. So in the case where something seems purely random or uncaused, the actual event was arranged and the most likely candidate since you surely cannot produce any other being in His place, is God.

I would also like to point out that I pretty much knew I would be accoted for using 'my own' definition of the word coincidence.

B.) You still have failed to point out the original 'action', however. You must take into consideration the event and it's pieces as a whole, look at the bigger picture, and tell me where there is a more likely cause than God that set the chain of events in motion.

To do so is impossible. I have absolutely no way of knowing what was stimulating his brain.

J.) So to rule out the possibility that his connection and friendship with God was what caused him to act is entirely closing one's mind to an array of possibilities. This is not an accusation, so please do not take it as such. It is simply an observance.

D.) There appears to be no natural stimuli for my friend's having made the choices he did in the sequence he did, as I have already showed you where the definition of 'coincidence' could be considered faulty or to my use, and there still appears to be no original 'action' which he could have acted and reacted upon.

I don't care if there doesn't appear to be a natural stimuli or not. Does there appear to be a force acting on my calculator on my desk? It doesn't appear so, but actually the force of gravity is pushing down and the force of my desk is pushing up, along with any other invisible force acting on my calculator such as wind or anything else.

Yet you cannot prove that such a thing as 'gravity' exists. I am not denying the natural force itself, merely pointing out that to presume if you throw the calculator up, it will come down, is an excercise of faith. Merely because, you cannot for certain know whether gravity will act on it without assumption or belief. To assume is arrogant, however, because it is without basis at all. That is why it is an assumption.

Only your definition is considered faulty. Anything straying from the accepted definition is no longer a correct representation of the word unless we have both agreed to what we want the word coincidence to represent.

H.)

I didn't see the very last part of your post until I double checked your post and I already wrote a response so I'm just going to post it. I have a ton of homework to do and I don't know if I'll be on again today so just post a reply to this instead of editing your original post.

No problem. If you have the time, some time soon, please address the further points I made, as some of them relate and answer things you pointed out as 'incorrect' in my post.

downbeatplumb- I refer you to F.) and G.) of my post after yours.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Book of Genesis is in the Old Testament, no? Regarding the Old Testament: that was God learning. God sees the world through the eyes of love, but at one time, He did not fully understand this Himself. So within the Old Testament is God laying down groundwork, and then, like a child playing with His new friend, He had to learn the proper and improper way of treating those He loved.

Within the New Testament is Jesus, whom is God's way of manifesting Himself in a way which humans are all capable of recognizing; a man who could perform extraordinary feats, and with extraordinary understanding of man and God and the relationship between the two. Jesus foresook the actions of God in the Old Testament, as a way of showing that God had changed.

EvidenceVsFaith-
1.) Because no scientific explanation can accurately explain what led my friend to the decisions he made that night.

2.) No, it is not correct to take coincidence as a more probable alternative because coincidence by definition is a flawed view of things. H.) & I.) demonstrate this, I believe.

3.) This is the problem one ultimately comes across in trying to discuss with someone who has an opposing view-point. From your perspective, evidence of God would be some verifiable claim, witnessed event with reprecussions obviously impossible without divine intervenion, or something otherwise impossible to explain through science.

But, this is flawed because it is viewing 'proof' as only on specifc kind of evidence. You are instantly writing off an array of different kinds of evidences which may be legitimate proof.

Here's a Sherlock Holmes quote for you-
"What seems strange to you is only so because you do no follow my train of thought--"
And how curious, I read this quote just today, and the one you referred to! Now, onto an explanation of said quote:
When one writes off the existence of God, they immediately close themselves off from His 'train of thought', so to speak. Since you do not follow His train of thought, what seems strange or coincidental to you is really a straight-forward, logical process. To present someone with the 'evidence', as defined from your view-point of God, God would in essence defeat the point of being believed in. So to take the proofs which God presents us with as more than coincidence, which already is faultily defined, we require faith as evidence, since faith denotes belief. So, just as a joke, your name could probably work better as "EvidenceAndFaith"!

theVoid- Refer to my answer for 3 above. You expect God to 'prove himself' in some extraordinary way, but that reasoning is flawed because then there is no reason to believe at all. God would be much more terrifying in that sense, AKA the Old Testament.

On the matter of good things happening to bad people: Sherlock Homes has already provided the answer in the instance above. God's motivations seem strange to you, because you don't follow His train of thought and are on your own, completely different train of thought. So when something good happens to a bad person, of course you don't understand it, because you don't understand God's logic for doing it.

I know I didn't respond to everyone's points, but that is mostly because the ones whom I did not answer seemed to me to be either digressing from the topic at hand, or would find my answers within my responses to other people.

-Watson

[Tiberius]

Please correct me if I am wrong, Adrian:

Your position is that free will is merely an illusion, i.e., we do not have free will.

That is correct.

1) that the only reason why you debate or discuss anything with anybody else is because you are compelled to based on your genetics, environment, etc.;

"Compelled" is probably the wrong word here. I wouldn't say "the only reason" either. My position is that the subconscious mind does all the decision making before the conscious mind is even aware of it. The thought process that goes through your conscious mind before making a decision has actually gone through your subconscious beforehand. This has been demonstrated by science to be true (in experiments anyway).

2) you have no reason to believe that anything you say could convince someone that you are "correct" in any position you take because the person you are talking to is compelled to think what they think also (unless of course you are compelled to believe such a thing);

Non-sequitur. Having no free will doesn't mean people are programmed to believe things and think certain things. Your decisions are based on your subconscious mind's reasoning when given certain inputs (from genetics / environment). If I am in a debate, and someone presents a logical argument against a held belief of mine, my subconscious interprets the argument (from the environment it has just come from...the debate), rationalises it against my inner logic, and comes to the conclusion that it is a good argument. My belief subsequently changes.

I used to be a advocate for free will. Even in this forum (if you look back a few months), I argued that free will had to exist, and it wasn't until new data was introduced into my environment (by means of a scientific research paper concluding that free will is unlikely, if not impossible), that I changed my mind. I say "changed my mind" as a common phrase. What actually happened was that my subconscious mind rationalised the arguments, and told my conscious mind what to think.

3) there is no such thing as "correct", "right", "true", "correct application of logic" etc., it is only what a person is compelled to perceive/think;

Non-sequitur again. It doesn't follow that the absence of free will means that truths in the universe suddenly cease to exist. You can demonstrate this easily. For instance, by your argument, if free will exists, then there is no "true". Therefore the statement "free will exists" cannot be true, ergo free will does not exist. You end up with a contradiction.

What I am arguing is that a person's opinions (which have no comparison with what is "true" about the universe) are the result of their genetics and environment (and possibly other factors). They are outputted by the subconscious mind, and are not the result of any conscious reasoning, since this has already happened in the subconscious mind.

Logic is merely the mechanism by which we rationalise things. We all have the same sense of logic, since we are all genetically similar. Our brains function in the same way. People have differing beliefs primarily due to the environment they grow up in, and the way their subconscious mind processes inputs because of this. A devout believer who "sees" God's work in everything has been brought up in such a way that this is their default position, rather than one of actually reasoning out things.

4) in reality, scientists are compelled to think free will doesn't exist regardless of what evidence they look at.

No. You could easily demonstrate that free will existed by disproving the results of the experiments I mentioned. Show that the conscious mind is the first to produce a decision over the subconscious mind, and you will have demonstrated free will.

I guess that would mean there is no real point to any communication and it certainly diminishes (to zero)the weight of any argument put forth here on this forum.

Of course there is a point to communication. We are a social species, we like communicating. I don't think there is free will and I run an atheist forum. I spend a lot of time instant messaging, emailing, and *shock horror* talking to people. I fail to see how the absence of free will means that an argument's weight is diminished to zero. If an argument convinces someone, it shouldn't matter by what means, just that it convinced someone. A convincing argument has a certain weight and value.

One of our top theist debaters (Arcanus) doesn't believe in free will, and he is a Christian. You might be interested in his post: http://atheistforums.org/thread-2044-pos...l#pid37654

I, for one, am glad we don't live like there is no free will. It would make a boring world (or maybe I am just compelled to think this).

Living as if there is no free will is the same as living as if there is. At the end of the day, our decisions are made by "us" at some point. I just don't think they are made by our subconscious. It doesn't mean I believe I'm a robot, or that I have no control, because at some level, what constitutes "me" is in control; it's just not the bit of "me" that does the conscious thinking. It wouldn't make the world a boring place at all. If you are imagining that we'd all be sat at home not bothering to do anything until our subconscious mind "told us to" then you have a very odd view of free will. We'd still do everything the same. We'd get hungry, go to the fridge, get reminded of someone on the way down the stairs, pick up the phone, call them, chat, hang up, etc, etc, etc.

Anything you can do or think with a presuppositional view of "free will" can be done without such a view.

[Zhalentine]

Unfortunately my homework is repetitive so I get side tracked easily. Anyways...

H.) But why use the dictionary definition when, in past experiences, said definition has failed to shed light on the experience in question? My own definition is based upon real life observance of coincidence as it has occured before me. It would be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You also point out that that definition is accepted by the majority of people as true, but remember, so is Christianity.

I use the dictionary definition because if everyone used their own definition we wouldn't be talking about the same thing.

I don't find that that definition even applies to this situation, as if it might have been arranged then that makes it all the more likely that a God was behind was appeared to be 'mere coincidence.'

The definition I provided is pertinent to the situation because your assumption that a god is behind this makes it seem like the situation might have been arranged. The Christian God is all knowing and therefore would have lead your friend to his house or wherever he went to help; this is where I consider the situation might have been arranged. The rest of the definition says that it is actually accidental, which was my point.

Yet you cannot prove that such a thing as 'gravity' exists. I am not denying the natural force itself, merely pointing out that to presume if you throw the calculator up, it will come down, is an excercise of faith. Merely because, you cannot for certain know whether gravity will act on it without assumption or belief. To assume is arrogant, however, because it is without basis at all. That is why it is an assumption.

If it is the gravity defined by science then it will come down unless I threw the calculator at a speed that would escape Earth's gravitational pull. The assumption that gravity will act on my calculator is an assumption, but not one without basis.

[Watson]

Unfortunately my homework is repetitive so I get side tracked easily. Anyways...

Homework is always a drag. xP

H.) But why use the dictionary definition when, in past experiences, said definition has failed to shed light on the experience in question? My own definition is based upon real life observance of coincidence as it has occured before me. It would be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You also point out that that definition is accepted by the majority of people as true, but remember, so is Christianity.

I use the dictionary definition because if everyone used their own definition we wouldn't be talking about the same thing.

1. - We would, if everyone would observe the world around them and come to their own conclusion. As long as they believe whole-heartedly in their own definition, and are viewing the same world as I am, the likelihood that they will reach the same or similar conclusions to my own is high.

2. - Even if they don't, as long as they don't consider me an enemy for my seperate conclusion, and view me as a friend since we are of the same species, then they will, at least, come to understand why I believe the way I believe.

If you'd like, come up with a definition of coincidence of your own, based upon your observanes of the world around you. Then we can compare and contrast, and see which is more accurate.

I don't find that that definition even applies to this situation, as if it might have been arranged then that makes it all the more likely that a God was behind was appeared to be 'mere coincidence.'

The definition I provided is pertinent to the situation because your assumption that a god is behind this makes it seem like the situation might have been arranged.

3. - I am not assuming that a god is behind this, I believe there is a god behind this. Assumption is based on little to no true proof, other than a feeble grasp of the assumed 'having happened before.'

The Christian God is all knowing and therefore would have lead your friend to his house or wherever he went to help; this is where I consider the situation might have been arranged. The rest of the definition says that it is actually accidental, which was my point.

4. - But again, there is no way for it to have been an accident, considering it had to have had a cause. This means where a situation appears to be accidental, it could actually have been arranged. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then this definition of coincidence disproves itself. And since there seems to be no more likely explanation, the arranger must have been God.

5. - Also, read my post further down. I specify that the Christian God is in fact not all knowing, but instead all understanding. He loves everyone and everything, and when you love someone or something, it is easy to understand it completely. So in this case, God would have understood that there was a place my friend needed to be, and arranged things accordingly. This goes back to 2. above.

Yet you cannot prove that such a thing as 'gravity' exists. I am not denying the natural force itself, merely pointing out that to presume if you throw the calculator up, it will come down, is an excercise of faith. Merely because, you cannot for certain know whether gravity will act on it without assumption or belief. To assume is arrogant, however, because it is without basis at all. That is why it is an assumption.

If it is the gravity defined by science then it will come down unless I threw the calculator at a speed that would escape Earth's gravitational pull. The assumption that gravity will act on my calculator is an assumption, but not one without basis.

But it has very little basis, other than a feeble concept of, "I've seen this happen before, it's going to happen again." This goes back to 3. above.

[Tiberius]

1. - We would, if everyone would observe the world around them and come to their own conclusion. As long as they believe whole-heartedly in their own definition, and are viewing the same world as I am, the likelihood that they will reach the same or similar conclusions to my own is high.

That doesn't stop people using a definition which may be different to another person's, and thus leading to confusion. You can't simply use your own definition for words. It would lead to chaos. This is why we have specific definitions for things.

2. - Even if they don't, as long as they don't consider me an enemy for my seperate conclusion, and view me as a friend since we are of the same species, then they will, at least, come to understand why I believe the way I believe.

Bullshit. People are the same species, but they don't think alike. The number of religions / political parties / social groups / hobbies / etc...etc.. is evidence of that. Some people think one way, some people think a different way. When beliefs clash (as atheism / theism do), one cannot understand why someone believes the way they do. If you could, you would be of the same belief as that person.

If you'd like, come up with a definition of coincidence of your own, based upon your observanes of the world around you. Then we can compare and contrast, and see which is more accurate.

WTF? How on earth could you measure accuracy of a definition when someone is simply making up their own definition for a word. If you don't have a standard to compare it to, you can't measure it. If I define "cloud" as a fluffy white thing in the sky", and someone else defines it as "a very large tv", which is more accurate? Both are descriptions of actual things, and if you make your own definition, you cannot comment on the accuracy of another person's. To do so would be to resort to some standard (for instance, if more people used *my* definition of a cloud). However, that is the thing you seem to be against doing.

3. - I am not assuming that a god is behind this, I believe there is a god behind this. Assumption is based on little to no true proof, other than a feeble grasp of the assumed 'having happened before.'

Actually, an assumption is based on no proof whatsoever. That's why it's an assumption. It can either be true or false. Whether it is true or false is not determined.

4. - But again, there is no way for it to have been an accident, considering it had to have had a cause. This means where a situation appears to be accidental, it could actually have been arranged. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then this definition of coincidence disproves itself. And since there seems to be no more likely explanation, the arranger must have been God.

Accidents have causes all the time. Look up the definition of an 'accident'...oh wait, you have a vendetta against dictionaries. My bad.

"No more likely explanation"...are you insane? You can't prove it happened another way, therefore it was God? You do realise how unlikely God is right? You are asking for the existence of a being that dwells outside the known universe, outside of time, outside of pretty much everything. Not only this, but the God is omnipotent and omniscient (which we are simply unable to comprehend since they involve infinities). I have a more likely explanation. Guess what? It doesn't involve the existence of such a being, and it certainly doesn't require the enormous amounts of evidence you would need to prove the existence of said being.

You are arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity. Just because there isn't a "more likely" explanation, or just because you cannot think of one, does not mean you can simply insert any cause you like instead. Your explanation is one based on no evidence whatsoever, and so itself is put to the bottom of the "likely" pile.

5. - Also, read my post further down. I specify that the Christian God is in fact not all knowing, but instead all understanding. He loves everyone and everything, and when you love someone or something, it is easy to understand it completely. So in this case, God would have understood that there was a place my friend needed to be, and arranged things accordingly. This goes back to 2. above.

Evidence please...

But it has very little basis, other than a feeble concept of, "I've seen this happen before, it's going to happen again." This goes back to 3. above.

No, it's got a very strong basis. Namely: Physics. We have laws describing how gravity interacts with objects. These laws are descriptive of the observable reality. If you think physics is based on the concept of "I've seen this happen before, it's going to happen again", you are very mistaken.

[Watson]

1. - We would, if everyone would observe the world around them and come to their own conclusion. As long as they believe whole-heartedly in their own definition, and are viewing the same world as I am, the likelihood that they will reach the same or similar conclusions to my own is high.

That doesn't stop people using a definition which may be different to another person's, and thus leading to confusion. You can't simply use your own definition for words. It would lead to chaos. This is why we have specific definitions for things.

We're observing the same world, therefore if there are differences between two different definitions, they are likely to be minor or unimportant at best.

2. - Even if they don't, as long as they don't consider me an enemy for my seperate conclusion, and view me as a friend since we are of the same species, then they will, at least, come to understand why I believe the way I believe.

Bullshit. People are the same species, but they don't think alike. The number of religions / political parties / social groups / hobbies / etc...etc.. is evidence of that. Some people think one way, some people think a different way. When beliefs clash (as atheism / theism do), one cannot understand why someone believes the way they do. If you could, you would be of the same belief as that person.

The part that I have bolded in your post is where I will state my counter-point from. The number of different view-points comes from the fact that everyone thinks differently, but the fact that these view-points clash is because the people holding them cannot understand how the two points could be connected or work together. This is born from ignorance of the opposing view-point, rather than not holding the view-point in question.

If you'd like, come up with a definition of coincidence of your own, based upon your observanes of the world around you. Then we can compare and contrast, and see which is more accurate.

WTF? How on earth could you measure accuracy of a definition when someone is simply making up their own definition for a word. If you don't have a standard to compare it to, you can't measure it. If I define "cloud" as a fluffy white thing in the sky", and someone else defines it as "a very large tv", which is more accurate? Both are descriptions of actual things, and if you make your own definition, you cannot comment on the accuracy of another person's. To do so would be to resort to some standard (for instance, if more people used *my* definition of a cloud). However, that is the thing you seem to be against doing.

You misunderstand. I wasn't telling him to just pull a definition out of the sky, I was asking him to pull it from his bservances and perception of the world around him. Since we aboth human beings and both see the same world, it is likely that unless he has seen something I have not, he will come up with a similar definiton to mine. Your standard is real life, not fantasy.

3. - I am not assuming that a god is behind this, I believe there is a god behind this. Assumption is based on little to no true proof, other than a feeble grasp of the assumed 'having happened before.'

Actually, an assumption is based on no proof whatsoever. That's why it's an assumption. It can either be true or false. Whether it is true or false is not determined.

All the more reason it is unreasonable to make an assumption on something. If you're arguing that, then why isn't it reasonable to just 'assume' there is a God? Because it is arrogant and lacks understanding, that is why.

4. - But again, there is no way for it to have been an accident, considering it had to have had a cause. This means where a situation appears to be accidental, it could actually have been arranged. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then this definition of coincidence disproves itself. And since there seems to be no more likely explanation, the arranger must have been God.

Accidents have causes all the time. Look up the definition of an 'accident'...oh wait, you have a vendetta against dictionaries. My bad.

Try to ease up on the sarcasm, it makes you seem pompous and, well, arrogant. For the sake of correctin gmyself, however, we'll substitute where I said 'accident' and replace it with the word 'coincidence' again.

"No more likely explanation"...are you insane? You can't prove it happened another way, therefore it was God? You do realise how unlikely God is right?

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be truth. Read my prior posts, not just the one you responded to.

You are asking for the existence of a being that dwells outside the known universe, outside of time, outside of pretty much everything. Not only this, but the God is omnipotent and omniscient (which we are simply unable to comprehend since they involve infinities).

The story itself was proof and evidence, but notthe kindwhich you want. It's all th eproof I need.

I have a more likely explanation. Guess what? It doesn't involve the existence of such a being, and it certainly doesn't require the enormous amounts of evidence you would need to prove the existence of said being.

By all means, share you explanation. I'm open to it and I will listen intently. But once again you misinterpret theidea of what 'evidence' is, because thre is not just one kind of evidence. To say that there is would be to close one's mind to, and write off an array of possibilities. This, I have covered in previous posts.

You are arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity. Just because there isn't a "more likely" explanation, or just because you cannot think of one, does not mean you can simply insert any cause you like instead. Your explanation is one based on no evidence whatsoever,

It's based on evidence, alright. Just not the kind of evidence you wish to perceive. My explanation is not just an insert, and is certainly not ignorant. Don't take me for a fool.

and so itself is put to the bottom of the "likely" pile.

And yet your explanation, from what you have stated previously, is much moe reasonable. Share, then, that explanation.

5. - Also, read my post further down. I specify that the Christian God is in fact not all knowing, but instead all understanding. He loves everyone and everything, and when you love someone or something, it is easy to understand it completely. So in this case, God would have understood that there was a place my friend needed to be, and arranged things accordingly. This goes back to 2. above.

Evidence please...

Uh, a working understanding of the Bible...

But it has very little basis, other than a feeble concept of, "I've seen this happen before, it's going to happen again." This goes back to 3. above.

No, it's got a very strong basis. Namely: Physics. We have laws describing how gravity interacts with objects. These laws are descriptive of the observable reality. If you think physics is based on the concept of "I've seen this happen before, it's going to happen again", you are very mistaken.

Then what causes gravity to work? I firmly believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, regardless of, as you mentioned, how quantum physics works. So prove to me that gravity will work every time by specifying it's cause.

[rjh4 is back]

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, Adrian:

Your position is that free will is merely an illusion, i.e., we do not have free will.

That is correct.

1) that the only reason why you debate or discuss anything with anybody else is because you are compelled to based on your genetics, environment, etc.;

"Compelled" is probably the wrong word here. I wouldn't say "the only reason" either. My position is that the subconscious mind does all the decision making before the conscious mind is even aware of it. The thought process that goes through your conscious mind before making a decision has actually gone through your subconscious beforehand. This has been demonstrated by science to be true (in experiments anyway).

2) you have no reason to believe that anything you say could convince someone that you are "correct" in any position you take because the person you are talking to is compelled to think what they think also (unless of course you are compelled to believe such a thing);

Non-sequitur. Having no free will doesn't mean people are programmed to believe things and think certain things. Your decisions are based on your subconscious mind's reasoning when given certain inputs (from genetics / environment). If I am in a debate, and someone presents a logical argument against a held belief of mine, my subconscious interprets the argument (from the environment it has just come from...the debate), rationalises it against my inner logic, and comes to the conclusion that it is a good argument. My belief subsequently changes.

I used to be a advocate for free will. Even in this forum (if you look back a few months), I argued that free will had to exist, and it wasn't until new data was introduced into my environment (by means of a scientific research paper concluding that free will is unlikely, if not impossible), that I changed my mind. I say "changed my mind" as a common phrase. What actually happened was that my subconscious mind rationalised the arguments, and told my conscious mind what to think.

3) there is no such thing as "correct", "right", "true", "correct application of logic" etc., it is only what a person is compelled to perceive/think;

Non-sequitur again. It doesn't follow that the absence of free will means that truths in the universe suddenly cease to exist. You can demonstrate this easily. For instance, by your argument, if free will exists, then there is no "true". Therefore the statement "free will exists" cannot be true, ergo free will does not exist. You end up with a contradiction.

What I am arguing is that a person's opinions (which have no comparison with what is "true" about the universe) are the result of their genetics and environment (and possibly other factors). They are outputted by the subconscious mind, and are not the result of any conscious reasoning, since this has already happened in the subconscious mind.

Logic is merely the mechanism by which we rationalise things. We all have the same sense of logic, since we are all genetically similar. Our brains function in the same way. People have differing beliefs primarily due to the environment they grow up in, and the way their subconscious mind processes inputs because of this. A devout believer who "sees" God's work in everything has been brought up in such a way that this is their default position, rather than one of actually reasoning out things.

4) in reality, scientists are compelled to think free will doesn't exist regardless of what evidence they look at.

No. You could easily demonstrate that free will existed by disproving the results of the experiments I mentioned. Show that the conscious mind is the first to produce a decision over the subconscious mind, and you will have demonstrated free will.

I guess that would mean there is no real point to any communication and it certainly diminishes (to zero)the weight of any argument put forth here on this forum.

Of course there is a point to communication. We are a social species, we like communicating. I don't think there is free will and I run an atheist forum. I spend a lot of time instant messaging, emailing, and *shock horror* talking to people. I fail to see how the absence of free will means that an argument's weight is diminished to zero. If an argument convinces someone, it shouldn't matter by what means, just that it convinced someone. A convincing argument has a certain weight and value.

One of our top theist debaters (Arcanus) doesn't believe in free will, and he is a Christian. You might be interested in his post: http://atheistforums.org/thread-2044-pos...l#pid37654

I, for one, am glad we don't live like there is no free will. It would make a boring world (or maybe I am just compelled to think this).

Living as if there is no free will is the same as living as if there is. At the end of the day, our decisions are made by "us" at some point. I just don't think they are made by our subconscious. It doesn't mean I believe I'm a robot, or that I have no control, because at some level, what constitutes "me" is in control; it's just not the bit of "me" that does the conscious thinking. It wouldn't make the world a boring place at all. If you are imagining that we'd all be sat at home not bothering to do anything until our subconscious mind "told us to" then you have a very odd view of free will. We'd still do everything the same. We'd get hungry, go to the fridge, get reminded of someone on the way down the stairs, pick up the phone, call them, chat, hang up, etc, etc, etc.

Anything you can do or think with a presuppositional view of "free will" can be done without such a view.

---

Thanks for the explanation, Adrian. It made a lot more sense than I thought it was going to. You clearly view the idea of not having "free will" in a different sense than I have ever thought of it before (and hence my comments). But I can see that looking at it like you do would make some of my comments inappropriate or not applicable.

[Tiberius]

We're observing the same world, therefore if there are differences between two different definitions, they are likely to be minor or unimportant at best.

You don't get definitions from observing the natural world though. That is the point. A definition is a statement about the meaning of a certain word. If someone defines that word one way, and another person defines it another way, you have no way of telling which definition is correct. This is why standards were developed. A word had a standard array of definitions, depending on the context in which the word was used.

The part that I have bolded in your post is where I will state my counter-point from. The number of different view-points comes from the fact that everyone thinks differently, but the fact that these view-points clash is because the people holding them cannot understand how the two points could be connected or work together. This is born from ignorance of the opposing view-point, rather than not holding the view-point in question.

That was my point. If you don't understand the point of view of another, you cannot hope to believe it too. Thus if you have two people of separate beliefs, neither will truly know why the other believes the way he does unless they share that belief. You can understand what that belief is, but you can never understand why they believe the way they do. That is a personal thing, and you are simply incapable of knowing it unless you have the same belief as they do.

You misunderstand. I wasn't telling him to just pull a definition out of the sky, I was asking him to pull it from his bservances and perception of the world around him. Since we aboth human beings and both see the same world, it is likely that unless he has seen something I have not, he will come up with a similar definiton to mine. Your standard is real life, not fantasy.

As I said before, you don't make up definitions from observances and perceptions. Definitions are standardised. The only time you look to observation and perception for a definition is when you are making a new one for the standard collection. Otherwise, you refer to the standard collection and see which definition best matches your observation. Not the other way around.

All the more reason it is unreasonable to make an assumption on something. If you're arguing that, then why isn't it reasonable to just 'assume' there is a God? Because it is arrogant and lacks understanding, that is why.

Assumptions are useful in arguments. Science is based on an assumption (that materialism is true), as are most ways of thinking. It isn't reasonable to assume there is a God because an assumption alone doesn't do anything. However, assumptions can lead to places. The assumptions of materialism in science have led to some of the best discoveries in the universe. Likewise, if you assume God, you can say some things about such a being. Whether the being exists or not, or materialism is true or not, is irrelevant. What matters is the places assumptions lead to.

Try to ease up on the sarcasm, it makes you seem pompous and, well, arrogant. For the sake of correctin gmyself, however, we'll substitute where I said 'accident' and replace it with the word 'coincidence' again.

You misunderstand. I *am* pompous and arrogant. Don't lecture me on what way to speak on a forum *I* run, thank you very much.

You don't know the meaning of the word coincidence either. Look it up for fuck's sake. Coincidences have causes too! Look:

a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance

Notice the word "apparently". That is only the way it seems, not what actually happened. The example they give is "Our meeting in Venice was pure coincidence.". It's a coincidence because the two events (A going to Venice and B going to Venice) seemed completely separate to each other, yet they joined at some point (in Venice). There are causes behind both events (both A and B got on a plane at some point I presume). A coincidence happens when two events are seemingly mutually exclusive, and yet happen at the same time.

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be truth. Read my prior posts, not just the one you responded to.

I contend that you have not eliminated the impossible. There are many other explanations other than "God did it" which have to be evaluated. The problem with this statement, is whilst it is all very well in literature, it bears no resemblance to reality. In reality, with a universe so big, with perhaps an infinite amount of possibilities, you cannot hope to eliminate them all.

Thus you are left with a number of different possibilities, of which most you know too little about to conclude that they are "impossible". If you think you can prove all other possibilities false, by all means don't let me stop you. I think you'll be there till the end of time, but hey, that's just my opinion.

The story itself was proof and evidence, but notthe kind which you want. It's all the proof I need.

Oh dear. I can just picture you now jumping up and down shouting "The Bible is true because God wrote it, and we know God wrote it because the Bible says he did!!!".

The story isn't proof of anything. Do you believe Harry Potter also exists? How about your Sherlock Holmes buddy? Stories are just that...stories! They are subjective to the highest degree, subject to inaccuracy and errors, and often have a multitude of ways of interpreting them. Stories are hearsay, anecdotal, and almost worthless because of this.

By all means, share you explanation. I'm open to it and I will listen intently. But once again you misinterpret theidea of what 'evidence' is, because thre is not just one kind of evidence. To say that there is would be to close one's mind to, and write off an array of possibilities. This, I have covered in previous posts.

13.7 billion years ago, the observable universe was contained within a singularity. There was no space or time. Then, the Big Bang occurred, and the universe started to expand. It's been doing it ever since, and we have the background radiation, red & blue shift, and a plethora of other evidence in support of this fact. No Gods needed.

You'll probably argue that God caused the Big Bang, because you keep using this mantra of "everything has a cause". Well, if everything has a cause, what caused God? Don't give me some bullshit answer like "God is eternal". Either accept that your argument "everything has a cause" is untrue, or explain what God's cause is.

It's based on evidence, alright. Just not the kind of evidence you wish to perceive. My explanation is not just an insert, and is certainly not ignorant. Don't take me for a fool.

Great, another fallacy. Ad hominem this time. Somehow it's *my* fault that I don't get your argument. Sorry, but that isn't how logic works. Better luck next time.

Present your evidence, and then we'll see if it stands up to rational thought. I didn't call you ignorant, I said you used the "argumentum ad ignorantum" fallacy. In other words, you formed an argument where you assumed something was true because it hadn't been disproven. In this case, you made the claim that "since there seems to be no more likely explanation, the arranger must have been God".

Uh, a working understanding of the Bible...

I got that much. I wanted you to enlighten me with the appropriate passage.

Then what causes gravity to work? I firmly believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, regardless of, as you mentioned, how quantum physics works. So prove to me that gravity will work every time by specifying it's cause.

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime around matter. That is what causes gravity. If an object curves spacetime, you get gravity, The bigger the object, the larger the curve, and the larger the pull of gravity.

Black holes are a prediction of this theory, since super-massive objects collapse in on themselves, and spacetime collapses with them, forming a gravity well so powerful that light can't escape.

[tackattack]

13.7 billion years ago, the observable universe was contained within a singularity. There was no space or time. Then, the Big Bang occurred, and the universe started to expand. It's been doing it ever since, and we have the background radiation, red & blue shift, and a plethora of other evidence in support of this fact. No Gods needed.

You'll probably argue that God caused the Big Bang, because you keep using this mantra of "everything has a cause". Well, if everything has a cause, what caused God? Don't give me some bullshit answer like "God is eternal". Either accept that your argument "everything has a cause" is untrue, or explain what God's cause is.

Don't want to interrupt but quick question. I contend that most things have a cause. There are a rare few things which have No cause, so probablistically withing this universe, history shows the big bang should have a cause. It could be the exception but that's unlikely. God however, if he is the cause and therefore outside our known universe (but could possibly be within the singularity or outside it), why would we require proof of laws governing a place without any frame of comparison? I'm not stating that God didn't have a cuase or that he did, merely how should we formulate a hypothesis on a place that exists outside of the laws of nature that exist in this universe?