What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[SteveII]

[GrandizerII]

Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

Magic.

[Jackie]

Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

Magic.

BINGO both "magic" and "miracle" are really the same thing. Swallow first suspend criticism and that allows you to buy the fantastic claim.

[SteveII]

Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

The thing is if I dumb it down, then I have to explain more because the next person will spot the gaps.

[Jackie]

Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

The thing is if I dumb it down, then I have to explain more because the next person will spot the gaps.

No you aren't dumbing it down, what you are really admitting is that the more elaborate you make it, you hope someone smart enough cant peal back the layers of the onion so you need to keep your elaborate tripe complex, that is why you fell for it yourself. 

You came in here thinking we were easy pushovers and hadn't run into any elaborate tripe before. We can spot the gaps even without you watering it down.

[SteveII]

Tell me precisely where this definition is logically incoherent so I can figure out where the disconnect is:

Definition of Free Will: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)

There is no disconnect that I can see here, but this seems to fit well with compatibilism and if it's meant to be describing libertarian free will, it doesn't seem to provide a sufficient description.

The disconnect, if you need one, is in the elaboration you provided in this quote below:

I am a non-physicalist, non-deterministic, dualist-interactionist. And as such I believe that the immaterial mind has actual free will to make real choices not always influenced by some prior cause.

I already explained what's wrong with this description in my previous response.

Then it seems you are asserting that only physical brain states are responsible for decisions. The only support I know for that conclusion is to presuppose naturalism (it can be no other way). If that is your reasoning, it is question begging. Is there another reason to believe that that is all that is happening?

[GrandizerII]

[LadyForCamus]

Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

The thing is if I dumb it down, then I have to explain more because the next person will spot the gaps.

Or...you could just answer the question.

Also, please explain how you reached your conclusion that causing things to happen without being present is a more reasonable notion than that of being present everywhere, all the time. Also, if god is 'causally active' in our universe, why can't we find any evidence of his activities?

[Jackie]

There is no disconnect that I can see here, but this seems to fit well with compatibilism and if it's meant to be describing libertarian free will, it doesn't seem to provide a sufficient description.

The disconnect, if you need one, is in the elaboration you provided in this quote below:


I already explained what's wrong with this description in my previous response.

Then it seems you are asserting that only physical brain states are responsible for decisions. The only support I know for that conclusion is to presuppose naturalism (it can be no other way). If that is your reasoning, it is question begging. Is there another reason to believe that that is all that is happening?

Um no, evolution and neurology as sciences don't claim that everything our bodies do is either only subconscious or or only always aware. Our brain stem regulates all our organs and that part we have no control over. It is not either/or but depends on what we are talking about. Your brain allows both conscious and subconscious decisions. 

I can chose to type this sentence, I cannot chose to have my fingertips feel the keyboard unless I amputate my hand and I cant chose to have a neurological disease, not that I have one, but I cant chose that which could cause me to lose neurological control over parts of my body or my senses.

And stop projecting the word "presuppose" on us. That is your bullshit, not ours. Evolution is proven science, neurology is proven science. If scientists want to prove something they don't have to simply mentally masturbate, they can prove it in a lab.

Presupposition is just another bullshit word for apology that theists use.

[GrandizerII]

Then it seems you are asserting that only physical brain states are responsible for decisions. The only support I know for that conclusion is to presuppose naturalism (it can be no other way). If that is your reasoning, it is question begging. Is there another reason to believe that that is all that is happening?

Don't be dense. I asserted no such thing. Can you not see how it is a logical contradiction to make a choice with no prior determining factor? I am trying to argue logic with you, without presupposing naturalism. Focus, Steve.