Free Will vs Determinism

[Vendetta]

How does IC deal with his omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent 'God' and our 'freewill'?

As if we have this 'freewill' then this 'God' is missing an omni' or two so not much of a 'God' then.

The existence of God does not rely on the fact that this being caused/s everything to happen. It is easy to look at God from a purely Deterministic perspective as it is commonly believed that God created and caused everything in the universe. However, God can still be omniscient and omnipotent with the presence of free will.

One must look at God as a guiding force rather than a great decider.
Sorry but he's never spoken to me, because I'm not schizophrenic. So he's never guided me!

It is possible for God to know all, be everywhere, and have influence over things without using those abilities to determine exactly how we will all behave. Instead of deciding what we should do, perhaps God guides us in a specific direction, but in the end allows us to choose the path we will take. He may know what is going to happen, but that doesn't mean that he causes it to be so. Instead of the great instigator, he is the great overseer.

It's also possible that all your god talk is simply bullshit! Did I say possible or probable?

Ad hominem is a rather ineffective way to get your point across. Perhaps trying to understand why one may disagree will help strengthen your belief rather than hurling insults.

What evidence have you provided against the belief in the supreme other than through bouts of loud propaganda-esque verbiage that hold no coherent reason?

I think you're the one who needs the "peace" here

[thedoc]

So your refusal to face the reality of determinism is based on the terror that it would invoke in you if you did. As I suspected!

Your repressed terror is based on the mistaken perceptions that life would be rendered stupid, that love would be rendered worthless, that criminals would roam free and doubtless much more besides. I can see you have much to fear!

Ah! projection, the last refuge of a failed argument, project your own feelings onto others and make yourself feel normal,

[thedoc]

Well I'm an agnostic, "knowing" that neither a theist nor an atheist can "know" if there is or isn't a creator that is mindful in it's creation of the universe/you and I, of course to hell with mans god.[/color]

Wrong, it is possible for a theist to "know" that God exists.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The existence of God does not rely on the fact that this being caused/s everything to happen. It is easy to look at God from a purely Deterministic perspective as it is commonly believed that God created and caused everything in the universe. However, God can still be omniscient and omnipotent with the presence of free will.

One must look at God as a guiding force rather than a great decider.
Sorry but he's never spoken to me, because I'm not schizophrenic. So he's never guided me!

It is possible for God to know all, be everywhere, and have influence over things without using those abilities to determine exactly how we will all behave. Instead of deciding what we should do, perhaps God guides us in a specific direction, but in the end allows us to choose the path we will take. He may know what is going to happen, but that doesn't mean that he causes it to be so. Instead of the great instigator, he is the great overseer.

It's also possible that all your god talk is simply bullshit! Did I say possible or probable?

Ad hominem
Not ad hominem!

bullshit [boo l-shit] Slang: Vulgar.
noun
1. nonsense, lies, or exaggeration.
verb (used with object), bullshitted or bullshit, bullshitting.
2. to lie or exaggerate to.
verb (used without object), bullshitted or bullshit, bullshitting.
3. to speak lies or nonsense.
interjection
4. (used especially to express disagreement.)

AND:

ad hominem [ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

I didn't attack your character, you didn't coin that religious "bullshit" (nonsense). My argument was that the bible crap is simply nonsense, exaggerated, lies, etc!

I mean it made perfect sense for the persecuted in that relatively ignorant day to invent an all powerful deity, more powerful than the deities that their rulers believed in, that would have their best interests at heart. All they had to do was cast doubt in the minds of their oppressors, and a movement given enough populace and conviction, at the right time, can do just that. As always the oppressed not the oppressors are always greatest in numbers, and have the greater conviction, in being free of tyranny. Ancient, relatively ignorant, mankind has always looked to the heavens for answers to that which they couldn't understand.

is a rather ineffective way to get your point across. Perhaps trying to understand why one may disagree will help strengthen your belief rather than hurling insults.

What evidence have you provided against the belief in the supreme other than through bouts of loud propaganda-esque verbiage that hold no coherent reason?

I think you're the one who needs the "peace" here

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well I'm an agnostic, "knowing" that neither a theist nor an atheist can "know" if there is or isn't a creator that is mindful in it's creation of the universe/you and I, of course to hell with mans god.[/color]

Wrong, it is possible for a theist to "know" that God exists.

If you believe this then you have no clue as to what knowledge is. You can say that you believe, that you have faith. Faith is in fact the buzz word when it comes to religion. But no one can "KNOW"

know 1 [noh]
verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.
7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with.
verb (used without object), knew, known, knowing.
8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.
noun
10. the fact or state of knowing; knowledge.
Idioms
11. in the know, possessing inside, secret, or special information.
12. know the ropes, Informal. to understand or be familiar with the particulars of a subject or business: He knew the ropes better than anyone else in politics.

We'll take the first definition because the first is always the main, first and foremost, meaning.
Now take note of the word "CERTAINTY."
No one can know something with certainty if they haven't observed it. And even then, things aren't always as they appear.

Now you can say what ever you want, but I "KNOW" better!

[thedoc]

1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

No one can know something with certainty if they haven't observed it. And even then, things aren't always as they appear.

Now you can say what ever you want, but I "KNOW" better!

I have observed and I know, you know nothing.

[SpheresOfBalance]

1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

No one can know something with certainty if they haven't observed it. And even then, things aren't always as they appear.

Now you can say what ever you want, but I "KNOW" better!

I have observed and I know, you know nothing.

What are you doing up so late? Only us lonely bastards are up this late, though you're central time right? I'm eastern!
And no, what you said applies to you, not I. Another case of you projecting that which you know so well, as you exemplify it, upon another.

You have to watch me doc, I'm very literal most of the time. Of course I make mistakes, I'm human! But usually I use the words I use for a reason.

No one can "know" if there is or is not a creator. All anyone can do is believe, have faith, that either there is or is not one.

[thedoc]

No one can "know" if there is or is not a creator. All anyone can do is believe, have faith, that either there is or is not one.

You're wrong, some people can "know", but those who don't know, or don't believe, often project their disbelief onto others.

My mother was like that, she claimed that she knew my motives better than I did, I just got tired of arguing with her.

[Immanuel Can]

No one can "know" if there is or is not a creator. All anyone can do is believe, have faith, that either there is or is not one.

You're wrong, some people can "know", but those who don't know, or don't believe, often project their disbelief onto others.

My mother was like that, she claimed that she knew my motives better than I did, I just got tired of arguing with her.

Yes.

Even if, for argument's sake, we were to grant Spheres his point, he'd need to tell us how he *knows* that nobody can know God. For surely, there we would expect that there would be some rather straightforward ways people could know God (even if, as it so happens, none do, as we are granting him for the argument's sake).

Could not a Supreme Being speak? Could not a Supreme Being reveal Himself? Could not a Supreme Being make Himself manifest in nature, in persons or in miracles? Well, if He couldn't, then he'd be a great deal less than "supreme," wouldn't he? Those are the kinds of things ordinary people like you and I do every day...we speak, reveal our natures, manifest ourselves in our work, make gestures of self, write our names, send pictures, and so forth.

Now, IF God has not done any of those things, then surely there's no reason to believe he COULDN'T, at least in principle if not in actuality. So it seems very, very easy to show that a person could have a way to know God.

But for some reason Spheres would have to imagine God can't do any of that.

Why not?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, your faith in a Supreme Being Who intervenes in nature is not a lot of use for making this world a better place.

Few people outside of the USA and superstitious 'third world' countries believe in an interventionist God.

This world is in bad trouble and you ought to take god more seriously than you do. If you persist in believing in an interventionist god you will fail to act as a fully responsible adult. God is not as magically powerful as you make out. Humans need to discover and support the immanent god. There is no magic, no miracle. There is just hard work sacrifice.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, your faith in a Supreme Being Who intervenes in nature is not a lot of use for making this world a better place.

Oh, man...is that ever empirically untrue!

...an interventionist God.

I don't know what you mean by "interventionist." It's certainly not the adjective I would have chosen. I think you're imagining my position...but getting it wrong somehow. Maybe you can explain.

Is it your supposition that I believe things like that if it thunders, then that's God rumbling? Or do you have a more sophisticated meaning behind "interventionist"?

This world is in bad trouble and you ought to take god more seriously than you do.

We all ought to. But what's that to the point? You have no knowledge of how "seriously" I take anything.

If you persist in believing in an interventionist god you will fail to act as a fully responsible adult.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "interventionist," but this statement is weak stuff by any account. I don't know any Theists who behave in the way you seem to think they do. Some may exist, I suppose; but I've never seen them, and I'm certainly not them.

God is not as magically powerful as you make out.

What did I "make out"?

Humans need to discover and support the immanent god.

If you think it's a god, and yet it needs your "support," then it certainly isn't the Supreme Being. Moreover, if God were totally immanent, then human beings wouldn't "need" any God at all. That really isn't adding up, Belinda.

[Belinda]

1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

No one can know something with certainty if they haven't observed it. And even then, things aren't always as they appear.

Now you can say what ever you want, but I "KNOW" better!

I have observed and I know, you know nothing.

The doc, the object of your knowledge may in fact be knowable. However this depends upon what the object of your supposed 'knowledge ' is. You have posted reasoning posts so far, therefore I presume that " I have observed and I know," applies to empirical and publicly available observations, and is not a cryptic remark about superstitious beliefs.

If I am correct, as I hope I am, you ought to tell us what you mean when when you say that you have observed and you know.

[thedoc]

If I am correct, as I hope I am, you ought to tell us what you mean when when you say that you have observed and you know.

Fair enough, many years ago I attended a conference for charismatics at Messiah College in Pa. During the final service there was a large group of people in an auditorium. During the service there was a localized disturbance in the assembled crowd and it seemed to move all around the room, it sounded like murmuring, shuffling of the feet and slight sliding of the chairs. As I said it was very localized but it moved as if something was flying just over the crowd but close enough to effect them. It finally settled on a girl singer of the group that had preformed some of the music during the conference but they weren't performing for this service. She stood up and sang in tongues and then sang the translation. I am familiar with the sound of most human languages but this didn't sound like anything I had heard before. To me it seemed like the disturbance was caused by the presence of the Holy Spirit and I reasoned that if the Hols Spirit was real then God, of whom the Holy Spirit is a part, is real as well. I had a recording of the service with everything I described but I no longer have my copy, and I am currently trying to track down another copy. I have stated elsewhere that I understand that the experience would only be meaningful for those in attendance, anyone else could come up with some other explanation, but they weren't there, part of the experience was the feeling during the event.

I believe that the level of evidence is equal to whatever the believer needs to convince them, but there will always be some who refuse to be convinced no matter what, and some don't need any at all.

[Belinda]

The doc, thanks.

That is interesting, and I too would have been impressed. I never understood the Holy Spirit component of the Trinity, so I could not have interpreted the experience as you did despite that I'd have been impressed with the girl's performance. It's especially interesting that you know the sounds, the rhythms, of several languages and the mysterious language was not one that you recognised.

I did once have a paranormal experience which I have never interpreted . It felt like a good experience. Because I never managed to interpret the experience I name it "paranormal" and not "supernatural" or any other word that implies the existence of a being or a Being which is not of this world. And, as I said, I would be unable to ascribe to my experience any holy spirit as I don't even know what holy spirit means.

[Belinda]

Immanuel can wrote:

Immanuel Can, your faith in a Supreme Being Who intervenes in nature is not a lot of use for making this world a better place.

Oh, man...is that ever empirically untrue!

Yes, well religion has caused a lot of good to happen.The evil caused by organised religion far outweighs the good. Humanism is as able as organised religion to provide a framework of ethics which is indistinguishable from the best of religious ethics.

...an interventionist God.

I don't know what you mean by "interventionist." It's certainly not the adjective I would have chosen. I think you're imagining my position...but getting it wrong somehow. Maybe you can explain.

Is it your supposition that I believe things like that if it thunders, then that's God rumbling? Or do you have a more sophisticated meaning behind "interventionist"?

Yes, that would be one supposed intervention. I meant more like intervening in history so that some human event would have been otherwise if God had not intervened. I unbelieve all such supposed interventions as well as the thunder one that you suggested.

This world is in bad trouble and you ought to take god more seriously than you do.

We all ought to. But what's that to the point? You have no knowledge of how "seriously" I take anything.

If you believe that God will step in and sort out this wicked world you are relinquishing part of your responsibility as an adult and able human. Saint Teresa (of Avila if I rememeber ) described how we are the hands of God ' implying that God needs us to get things done.

If you persist in believing in an interventionist god you will fail to act as a fully responsible adult.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "interventionist," but this statement is weak stuff by any account. I don't know any Theists who behave in the way you seem to think they do. Some may exist, I suppose; but I've never seen them, and I'm certainly not them.

An interventionist person is one who intervenes. An interventionist theory is to do with someone or something intervening. Please see my reply to your "if it thunders, then that's God rumbling?"

God is not as magically powerful as you make out.

What did I "make out"?

I call it a magical idea that God can and does intervene in man's affairs. You seem to claim the He does intervene.

Humans need to discover and support the immanent god.

If you think it's a god, and yet it needs your "support," then it certainly isn't the Supreme Being. Moreover, if God were totally immanent, then human beings wouldn't "need" any God at all. That really isn't adding up, Belinda.

[/quote]

I do have problem with this. As you say , it's certainly not the Supreme Being. In order for my idea to add up to my satisfaction I think that I have to believe in at least two gods. I do of course stress that by "gods" I don't refer to literal Beings, but to aspirations and basic axiomatic beliefs about existence. The basic axiomatic belief I refer to is that undoubtedly something is happening and what is happening is not all in the mind.
However an entirely immanent god is much needed as what we may aspire towards.