|
Post by transfuged on Jan 19, 2024 22:07:05 GMT
Film flaneur Oh yeah ?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2024 23:41:03 GMT
I think you are deliberately missing the point again. No, I'm making it. Pay attention: If God were to make it impossible to doubt his existence, it would no longer be a choice. Who said you have to eat it? Yeah, then you would be unable to doubt his existence just as you're unable to doubt the existence of that jelly bean. "Ought" and "should" are synonyms, so it would change nothing but the word. Isn't that what he'd be doing if he were to make himself known unequivocally? Let's see... coercion: The act of compelling by force of authority; using force to cause something to occur Yep. ( source) I'm not sure how you translate a reduction of choice into further information, but eliminating options is indeed a reduction of choice and thereby proportionately reduces free will. Now, in case you've lost track again, let me remind you that the choice at hand here is whether or not to believe God exists, nothing more, nothing less. And so if the option to not believe is removed, belief would be forced.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 19, 2024 23:59:51 GMT
Film flaneur And you wrote :”without any doubt”.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 20, 2024 1:19:48 GMT
Pay attention: If God were to make it impossible to doubt his existence, it would no longer be a choice. Pay attention. I have already said, just recently that I should have made my question more exactly "you know what it ought to take to convince everyone of your existence and also what would never work. Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation?" Something which you might have guessed when I have been talking about the obdurate who would doubtless still remain - as well as, note, when in my question I talk of those " many more souls brought to salvation" i.e. not "all". See also below my point about being forced to believe if one is really determined not to against all sense and odds. When we talk of an intellectual position being "impossible" not to accept it, is not the same as saying it is "impossible" to swallow a sackful of beans in one go only one is a literal impossibility. But I am sure you can see that. No one - hence choices would still remain for me. See how it works? As mentioned, while what might work for me as compelling evidence that ought to make doubt impossible, there is no accounting to the obdurate. And your purported god does not do that unambiguous thing, even knowing what would persuade me, because... that was my question remember? And here you are, talking beans. If only 'should' was in my original question there would be a point to this. But either word being used, my point remains the same. Here's the OED definition, much more the standard source: "Coercion : the action of making somebody do something that they do not want to do, using force or threatening to use force." You will note that it is not that I do not want to believe; I just want to see something persuasive. And when force is mentioned in the definition, I don't naturally think of "force of argument". Compelling persuasion is not the same as a regular coercive force, something which commonly involves physicality and threats. Coercion is a peculiar choice of a word that on reflection shows how strained your argument is. It is more just something is enormously compelling. The theory of gravity is evidenced pretty strongly and convincingly but I would not say I am 'coerced' into accepting it. If there is "force" it is force of argument. (It is also revealing that the first thought that a Christian has in regards to accepting his or her god is coercion at al but that is another matter) I am surprised you don't appreciate the fact which needs emphasising again here (actually I am not, but there it is) that,although something might be impossible not to believe in the sense that evidence or proof is overwhelming, people can still be perverse and just choose not to accept it and fly in the face of logic. It is very hard to make someone believe, if they are determined not to, one reason why for instance Pascal's Wager fails. One might be left with false or faint belief at best. I think your presumed deity would spot that. Think of that Christian I am talking to elsewhere, who thinks the world is just 6,000 years. It ought to be impossible given the level of evidence, but yet he still persists. Or I might insist your bean is not a real bean or the wrong bean or you're not bean fair. It was your point I thought that, as I ask to make an informed choice, based on more information, the result is a loss of choice as I am obliged to accept the certainty of the results, through "force" it would seem, and with an commensurate effect on my free will. Has that changed? Yes? No? And once again let me remind you, as said above, that the obdurate would always exist, those who would refuse to accept the compelling nature of what they were asked to believe in. Any update why your purported deity does not show himself in a way that would convince many more of his existence btw? That was my question remember, much as I enjoy the byways of your diversions and time is getting on lol Have I told you that as an atheist I have a strong suspicion why it will never happen? edited: spelling
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2024 1:32:18 GMT
Pay attention: If God were to make it impossible to doubt his existence, it would no longer be a choice. Pay attention. I have already said, just recently that I should have made my question more exactly "you know what it ought to take to convince everyone of your existence and also what would never work. Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation?" Something which you might have guessed when I have been talking about the obdurate who would doubtless still remain - as well as, note, when in my question I talk of those " many more souls brought to salvation" i.e. not "all". See also below my point about being forced to believe if one is really determined not to against all sense and odds. When we talk of an intellectual position being "impossible" not to accept it, is not the same as saying it is "impossible" to swallow a sackful of beans in one go only one is a literal impossibility. But I am sure you can see that. No one - hence choices would still remain for me. See how it works? As mentioned, while what might work for me as compelling evidence that ought to make doubt impossible, there is no accounting to the obdurate. And your purported god does not do that unambiguous thing, even knowing what would persuade me, because... that was my question remember? And here you are, talking beans. If only 'should' was in my original question there would be a point to this. But either word being used, my point remains the same. Here's the OED definition, much more the standard source: "Coercion : the action of making somebody do something that they do not want to do, using force or threatening to use force." You will note that it is not that I do not want to believe; I just want to see something persuasive. And when force is mentioned in the defintion, I don't naturally think of "force of argument". Compelling persuasion is not the same as a regular coercive force, something which commonly involves physicality and threats. Coercion is a peculiar choice of word that on reflection shows how strained your argument is. It is more just something is enormously compelling. The theory of gravity is evidenced pretty strongly and convincingly but I would not say I am 'coerced' into accepting it. If there is "force" it is force of argument. (It is also revealing that the first thought that a Christian has in regards to accepting his or her god is coercion at al but that is another matter) I am surprised you don't appreciate the fact which needs emphasising again here (actually I am not, but there it is) that,although something might be impossible not to believe in the sense that evidence or proof is overwhelming, people can still be perverse and just choose not to accept it and fly in the face of logic. It is very hard to make someone believe, if they are determined not to, one reason why for instance Pascal's Wager fails. One might be left with false or faint belief at best. I think your presumed deity would spot that. Think of that Christian I am talking to elsewhere, who thinks the world is just 6,000 years. It ought to be impossible given the level of evidence, but yet he still persists. Or I might insist your bean is not a real bean or the wrong bean or you're not bean fair. It was your point I thought that, as I ask to make an informed choice, based on more information, the result is a loss of choice as I am obliged to accept the certainty of the results, through "force" it would seem, and with an commensurate effect on my free will. Has that changed? Yes? No? And once again let me remind you, as said above, that the obdurate would always exist, those who would refuse to accept the compelling nature of what they were asked to belief in. Any update why your purported deity does not show himself in a way that would convince many more of his existence btw? That was my question remember, much as I enjoy the byways of your diversions and time is getting on lol Why do you always make things so complicated? When there's only one option, there is no choice to be made. I hope you like that red jelly bean.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 20, 2024 1:52:19 GMT
Why do you always make things so complicated? Because it is only those who want things easy need them simple. Ok then here's the thing. I was asking to make an informed decision through further information which, you say, as I am compelled to accept the result reduces my choices, and so my free will in proportion. God, being omniscient as you know, would be totally informed, including about all those things which leave Him with only one option, since it is impossible to deny the truth of it, especially as an totally honest entity. As a maximal being, compelled to accept one choice, on your basis that means He has less free will than any of us. I refuse to accept it exist. Are you going to force me?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 20, 2024 2:57:44 GMT
God is not omniscient. It did not know thatvpeople in Africa had souls and could not get sold on the Block. Men told it to ”god”.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 20, 2024 3:02:45 GMT
God is not omnipotent. It can’t create itself, and it can’t suppress itself either.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2024 3:20:36 GMT
Why do you always make things so complicated? Because it is only those who want things easy need them simple. It's not a matter of need, or even want. It's just simple, full stop. No, you were asking why God doesn't make himself known to the entire world without any doubt. And I didn't say whatever you just said I said. Having more information doesn't reduce your choices; elimination of options is what reduces your choices. This brings to mind Henry Ford: "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants, so long as it is black." I just did.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 20, 2024 3:32:29 GMT
God is not omnibenevolent. It gives free will than wait : who shall not sin, go to heaven, who shall sin does not.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2024 3:38:54 GMT
God is not omnibenevolent. It gives free will than wait : who shall not sin, go to heaven, who shall sin does not. It's a question of omniscience, at least in the sense of knowing even what cannot be known. If he knows -and has always known - that you'll end up in hell, then he created you to burn.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 20, 2024 3:45:31 GMT
God is not omnibenevolent. It gives free will than wait : who shall not sin, go to heaven, who shall sin does not. It's a question of omniscience, at least in the sense of knowing even what cannot be known. If he knows -and has always known - that you'll end up in hell, then he created you to burn. Maybe it is prescience and meanness. I meant that he does not like everyone, either sinners would get à pat on the head and go up.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2024 3:50:22 GMT
It's a question of omniscience, at least in the sense of knowing even what cannot be known. If he knows -and has always known - that you'll end up in hell, then he created you to burn. Maybe it is prescience and meanness. To be clear, that's an argument. It's not mine.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 20, 2024 4:13:08 GMT
I know. It’s getting late. The actual not omnibenevolent argument is that god has pet favorites who get blessed with grâce and others which are not.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2024 4:38:03 GMT
I know. It’s getting late. The actual not omnibenevolent argument is that god has pet favorites who get blessed with grâce and others which are not. I don't know about all that, but if there's nothing God can't do, then he wouldn't be bound by what we consider paradoxes. In the context of this thread, that would mean he could simultaneously exist and not exist. Once omniscience is introduced into the conversation, all imposed limits are nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 20, 2024 4:57:53 GMT
Schroedinger’s cat as a God... What’s the saying ... and the pope on a pogo stick ?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2024 5:39:58 GMT
Schroedinger’s cat as a God... What’s the saying ... and the pope on a pogo stick ? The headlines read: QUANTUM THEORY A MISTAKESchroedinger's Cat Found Half Alive!
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 20, 2024 10:35:03 GMT
Schroedinger’s cat as a God... What’s the saying ... and the pope on a pogo stick ? The headlines read: QUANTUM THEORY A MISTAKESchroedinger's Cat Found Half Alive! If only ! Always felt bad about that cruel experiment. They should actually put à scientist * in the box, not an innocent animal. Granted the law forbids it. (*And not the Guy who xerox things in the lab, I mean.) Let’s party, then !
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 20, 2024 10:45:35 GMT
And nonsense was the doctrine of a small school of gnostics. Nothing can be good as Jéhovah is the antichrist and his création is all wrong, so let’s do all the wrong things, nothing good shall happend anyway because Jéhovah, antichrist, darkness, création, ad nauseam. Nothing can make sense according to them... And we are going to exterminate each other in the west on what ground, if not nonsense ?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 20, 2024 21:34:37 GMT
"Because it is only those who want things easy need them simple." It's not a matter of need, or even want. It's just simple, full stop. I am pleased you find it so. It must be very reassuring. But the impression is that you really need it so rather than it so. Good. So, since oddly you didn't, let's address the situation of a god who knows everything in this context. If it knows everything for certain then only some decisions are possible, and in these cases it would have no free will. For instance a god which exists would know it exists and could not believe otherwise, so according to your logic would lack free will to choose otherwise. The same god would presumably also have no choice but to believe in hell, heaven, that the events of scripture took place, that it is in three bits, that it can only do what it can do, even its inability to change its nature (plus all those other things which only gods know of course) It would be "forced" and "coerced" (your emphasis) into acceptance, according to your idea of things. Arguably, using your argument, your deity which knows all things for sure would be the least free thing imaginable. See how it works? Sorry, but I still refuse to accept your bean exists and you stillhaven't made me. And at the moment your deity looks pretty dodgy too.
|
|