Why is god outside of our ability to be measured? He's always proving he exists in the old testament so why can't he do any of that stuff now? On the other hand if god has only ever existed outside of our universe and has never had anything to do with our universe than whether he exists or not is as irrelevent as last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, and so we can safely use Occum's razor to remove him.

I'm sure neuroscientists are working on it as we type.

Honestly, I have neither faith in religion nor in science.

I'm Buddhist, but it doesn't really seep into my life.
Things ARE.
That's the point, I don't try to find depth in them unless they're typed on a page and the author is absent.

I suppose I'm buddhist for the same reason that some people are Christians: because if I'm right, I'm right, but if I'm wrong, this makes sense.

Who said anything about the God you see in the Bible? I don't think I did recently.

Gods aren't measurable because we can't set up experiments to verify or disprove their existence.

And last I checked Occam's Razor only serves to point what is most probably correct, not that something can't exist as a definite proof. There's no reason I see why some god couldn't have created the universe and is just chilling out watching what's going on, maybe to intervene someday (or has in the past but decided to take a beer break or something).

Well, as soon as they figure out why humans have free will yet computers, robots, dogs, insects, rocks, trees, and atoms don't, get back to me.

I thought this was funny, because it sounded like you were trying to say that interpretation is a foolish exercise...except in a specific set of circumstances into which the bible falls.

RR, in order to search for free will, don't we need to define it first? I don't know that that's been done. Also not sure how you'd test it. I mean, if you come up with a mapping saying that people with this combination of chemistry and this class of background will do A. Then you test that against a sufficiently large sample and find out that a statistically significant sample actually does B, all that shows is that your mapping may be incorrect.

It seems at its essence that absolute free will would mean choices outside of any criteria, or beyond reason.

I was just using it as an example of a god that exists within our universe.

Then how are they different to last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat.

Occum's Razor states that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity', or to put in another way, 'we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof'. That sounds like it covers the possibility that there is a god who exists outside our universe, has nothing to do with our universe (to say he created our universe is just 'god-of-the-gaps') and cannot be measured.

Then I assume you also don't see any reason to discount last-thursdayism, or brain-in-a-vat or the infinite amount of other things which might exist but for which we have no evidence.

Why do you think that humans have 'free will' and dogs don't?

But the important thing to remember is just because one might not be true it doesn't necessarily make all religions untrue. Induction is well and good and everything, but there's no way it can disprove something's existence in the future.

I imagine those are completely non-observable, while a god which can choose to interact with us at any given time it would so desire. I meant the setting up experiments part as in, we can't make a god do something at our whim, nor do we necessarily know how to go about testing if it was work done by a god, so it's existence would be difficult to test for.

Going by the former translation given on wikipedia it seems more like it's up to the individual what's actually a simpler explanation. Clever cutting and pasting, though.

As I've said before, I don't even know if I exist. :(

Well, other than me not believing anything has free will, I just wonder where people try to make the distinction between things having and not having free will. Why is it bacteria only behave based upon the chemical impulses going on in their cells while we have some magic ability to not be held captive to our own chemical impulses?

Again, how is this different from last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, as none of these proposals can be falsified in practical terms.

Here's some more copy-and-pasting from the same article.

'In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities (although this is not always the same as simplicity)'

'Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount to less of an improbability. Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.'

Skepticism is all well and good, but when it comes to things that can not be falsified then I find it best to disregard it rather than to stew over something that has no answer, other than 5 tons of flax of course.

Snap, I don't believe in 'free will' either, although life is a lot simpler and more enjoyable if we allow ourselves the illusion that we have some sort of control over our actions.

Judgemental posts like this. So consumed with winning you compromise what you say with the way you say it.

Could you rephrase that in english perhaps.

What do you mean by winning? If by winning you mean getting everyone around to my point of view then I'm afraid you are projecting onto me. My only goal has been to present of own personal viewpoint and the reasons that have resulted in me choosing to adopt this viewpoint, and if I percieve any weaknesses or inconsistencies in other people's arguments then I point them out. Perhaps you could give an example of where I have said that my goals are any different or where I have 'compromised what I say with the way I say it', whatever that means.

If you could show where you actually offered any actual evidence for your assertations I would glady make a full and complete retraction of the post in question. As for being judgemental, I feel that if someone seems to be (knowingly or not) trying to wind people up by insulting their ethics and declaring themselves to the the only one in the right without a shred of evidence for their stace, then I feel I have the right to be judgemental.

This is not all that relevent to the topic, but,

I dont understand. In almost any situation you have the free will to do whatever, I think that you are confusing the consequence to what you choose to do with your free will, with free will itself.

What do you mean by 'free will'?

Well the Christain does have plenty to fear but we do have a reason to have courage(salvation through Jesus).
Its not easy going out out and taking it on the chin for Jesus. In some countries being a Christian is illegal. I believe I will get my reward but standing up for what I believe about my maker does in some cases require incredible courage Such action has killed other believers and could kill me too.


Do you have a particular deity in your belief system?
What shores up your convictions if you have any?

Sorry its the Yoda in me creeping out again.

I am challenging the ethics of others and searching out the source of everyones beliefs. Its been open season on my position from the start but I have refrained from name calling.

The best proof we can wrestle with is this. (Ecclesiastes 3:11 releates to this)
People throughout history have been concerned with the afterlife and spiritual concepts. No atheistic culture has ever been discovered & even in our modern time, belief in such concepts has survived the most thorough mental conditioning & violent repression. The notion that the human condition has a spiritual dimension is widely accepted.

Generally on the matter of an afterlife religions have these two basic principals.
1. A persons current life and actions affect their spiritual condition before & after death.
2. There is some kind of mechanism that sorts people out on the basis of some kind of system.

In this area my religion means a type of security like insurance on a car. In the event of death I am covered. As for why I am covered by a Christian system, its founder made a statement of
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
this statement and others like it in the Bible sets Christianity apart from all other religions. This statement of exclusive direction is in stark contrast to the other major religious systems being practiced today.
The Bible offers teaching in the area of specific direction tward the afterlife that other religious systems lack. Like any good insurance policy the Christian plan for salvation leaves no room for guess work. It lays out what is covered under the deal and the ramifications of not being covered.

I'm critical of the atheist because of the denial of a God on the basis of faith without some kind of back up plan.

The ability to choose what you want to do, when you want to do it.

Wait, back up plan for what?

What, you mean some kind of life-after-death schtick? We generally think that when you die, you rot away and go back into the Earth. No pearl gates, no hand of god, just DEATH.

I know that's a scary idea to some people. But life is scary. Deal with it.

You can be as critical as you like of atheists. We're critical of you, too.

And in most countries, being a Christian is just the norm. Stop acting like this is some great burden you're undertaking. Jesus.

More like the 33% of the world is Christian:

http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif

The Jews have more reason to bitch than you do, LordSword.

I assume you've never heard of the athiests' wager.

And how do you know that we are not merely labouring under the delusion that we have free will, when in fact all of our decisions are made by forces outside of our control?

If that is how you feel you should not be arguing on the side of athiests should you?

If you are referring to the goverment, you are wrong their too, the goverment does not control you, at least until you do something that would put you in trouble. It is as simple as this and can branch off to more complicated situations: you have an opportunity to steal a jolly rancher from one of you friends, do you do it? or do you leave it alone?

Athiesm has nothing to do with determinism vs free will.

The controls I referred to were biological and psychological in nature.

You mean like teenage hormones?

I mean things like the chemicals reactions that occur in our brains.

Have a look at this for more infomation.

I've read similar concepts. Regardless, even if free will is beginning to seem more defunct, in our practical lives we can still go around saying, "This choice was made freely". Some people I meet somehow think that news like this implies that they can't be held accountable for their actions.

Yes but from the perspective of an agnostic friend of mine.
I countered this with the specific nature of the Christian salvation message.

ALL other religons say you have to "work" your way into heaven and yes, In times past this docterine has crept into the Christian community but it is not supported by the bible.(Ephesians 2:8-9)

The Christian message says merely "believe that Jesus saves you" (Acts 4:8-12 & Romans 10:9)

The atheist wager also does not hold water because it has no basis for assuming authority in spiritual matters. Not believing doesn't affect the two basic spiritual principals that have been understood by humanity since the dawn of civilization.

1. A persons current life and actions affect their spiritual condition.
2. There is some kind of mechanism that sorts people out on the basis of some kind of system.

The atheist must come to the realization that no matter what they think there is a universe with laws we must conform to.


Because the bible tells me so. (Deuteronomy 6:5, Jeremiah 7:23, Hosea 6:6, John 14:15) God loves me enough to give me the choice to love him. Without free will Heaven & Hell wouldnt need to exist.

In case there is a God. Many people assume things but dont check what they know to see if its the truth.

I read this book once. It talked about the "Jewish peril" a lot, and how they were trying to take over the world. So the guy who wrote it threw millions of Jews in some ovens over in Germany.

I also read this book once that claimed politicians of the world take orders from 12 families in power. These families are from outer space and they are "reptilian." Shapeshifters.

Don't believe everything you read.