Atheism, theism and jelly beans

[Vociferous]

Yeah. I wasn't sure what to call it. Theory seemed to suit, but I'm happy to go with whatever you prefer.

Just a belief. I'm not interested in putting on airs.

OK, most of the universe is definitely not alive.
So, to say it's 'everywhere' and still 'alive' appears to be paradoxical.

I say 'appears to be' because it is obviously a more nuanced idea than I have divined so far.

Who said it was everywhere alive? I didn't. Maybe you should reread some of my posts.
It can exist everywhere while not being alive everywhere, as "alive" usually denotes biological organisms, which are obviously not everywhere.

OK, by 'mechanism', I'm trying to ask 'with what form the communication does it influence other entities' - particles, photons?

Who said anything about "influence"? The mechanism is not influence, it is the humans themselves.

You did. Above, where you say it affects earthly activity through humans.

No, I didn't. How do you propose human activity creates or manifests anything supernaturally?

Yes. Just making clear that 'It does nothing contradictory' doesn't address any questions.

I can't help it if you insist on a straw man that, what, it performs miracles.

Sure. Big 'if' there. God not existing at all also meets the criterion of not contradicting itself.

Since the concept of God definitely exists, the idea that it contradicts its own natural laws would make the concept, at least, self-contradictory.

It existed before the Big Bang, but it wasn't alive then.
Then it came alive after the BB.

Maybe you need to string these elements together for me.

If God created life, how could God have already been alive, in the same sense? Maybe you should start by defining what you mean by life. Something other than biological organisms?

This entity is alive, and exists everywhere in the universe, but is not alive everywhere in the universe.

You may need to elaborate on how this is not trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You have the conscious experience of being alive, but your thumb does not. Your thumb is alive, but there is a difference.
Again, perhaps you should define what you mean by "alive".

OK, so does it emit some form EMR, heat?

Again, it affects other things through humans, which do give off radiation.

True, but it does require defending the logic.

You have yet to ask about the logic of traits like omniscience, omnipotence, etc.. And you've yet to suggest any logical inconsistency or contradiction in anything I've already told you. Can't defend what I haven't heard objections to.

 

[Vociferous]

Anything that is natural is testable in principle (even if practically difficult).*

If you're claiming you God is not testable, that is either philosophy, or it is tantamount to a claim that it is beyond nature.

So: are you saying "God is not testable"?


*and yes that includes the moments after the Big Bang.

I don't think I made a claim, either way. Just like people who believe in scientism cannot say how they believe science will one day answer "gap" questions, I cannot foresee how that same science might one day show us something that more readily alludes to a God. Neither is really a justifiable claim. You cannot justifiably claim that we can test anything moments after the Big Bang, because current science tells us we have no reason to believe that we will ever be able to receive any information prior to the cosmological horizon, light prior to the last scattering, etc..

Who said God wasn't a matter of philosophy? Many questions beyond science are philosophical (and not supernatural).

All I know is that the logic of God is testable. But again, like all philosophy, that does not make it compelling.

 

[James R]

Something that wouldn't change your mind.

Something you're too shy to talk about?

 

[James R]

Vociferous:

How are those two mutually exclusive?

1. There is a universe with natural laws and a God.
2. There is a universe with natural laws and no God.

You can't see how those two are mutually exclusive?

I asked you how you can tell the difference between 1 and 2 by observing the universe. But I get the impression you're telling me that you can't tell the difference that way. Is that correct?

Where have I claimed that God intervenes in natural laws?

(?) Where have I claimed that you made that claim?

The source of the laws of nature is an open question, even to philosophy and science.
Can you justify the universe and the laws of nature coming from nothing? Or even coming from a fallacious infinite regress?
You may just throw your hands up at such questions. That's your prerogative.

It sounds like that's a "no" from you to the question I asked you: can you show that your God is necessary to create the universe, or to create the laws of nature, or whatever? But then, in the same post you seem to be saying that you can show it "primarily using logic". I'm interested in examining your logical argument, in that case.

I agree that the source of he law of nature is an open question. However, using your own method, the very least assumption is nothing, right? It's not the nothing that needs justification. It is the God. I'm interested how you get from the nothing to the God.

I'm also interested in how you ruled out infinite regress, which I assume you've done since you refer to it as "fallacious".

Who said God was testable? Many religions actually call that blasphemy.

Okay.

If your God isn't testable, then you're telling me there's no test that can be applied to tell the difference between rock-with-God and rock-without-God. This supports my view that you didn't reach your God conclusion through an examination of physical evidence. Good to know.

I'm pretty open about the fact that my beliefs are not compelling to others.
I arrive at my belief primarily through logic, which can address things empirical science cannot, albeit not as convincingly either. I'm fine with that.

Would you be open to discussing the chain of pure logic that led to your current belief in God, then? As I said, I'm interested in how you went from your "very least assumption" of nothing to God. I'd like to follow your reasoning.

 

[Vociferous]

Vociferous:

1. There is a universe with natural laws and a God.
2. There is a universe with natural laws and no God.

You can't see how those two are mutually exclusive?

I asked you how you can tell the difference between 1 and 2 by observing the universe. But I get the impression you're telling me that you can't tell the difference that way. Is that correct?

Aside from a God violating the laws of nature, I can't see how anyone could tell the difference. Them being mutually exclusive relies solely on you having some means to tell the difference. Any confidence you may have in telling the difference would seem to indict something you believe about a God, which you don't believe in.

Where have I claimed that God intervenes in natural laws?

(?) Where have I claimed that you made that claim?

I'm not sure how else you could tell the difference. If you have any other candidates, please share.

It sounds like that's a "no" from you to the question I asked you: can you show that your God is necessary to create the universe, or to create the laws of nature, or whatever? But then, in the same post you seem to be saying that you can show it "primarily using logic". I'm interested in examining your logical argument, in that case.

If you have no alternative explanation to why there's something rather than nothing, there's really no need.

I'm also interested in how you ruled out infinite regress, which I assume you've done since you refer to it as "fallacious".

An infinite regress is just a way to forever avoid explaining something, without any real justification.
But if you think infinite regresses are valid reasoning, please elaborate.

Who said God was testable? Many religions actually call that blasphemy.

Okay.

If your God isn't testable, then you're telling me there's no test that can be applied to tell the difference between rock-with-God and rock-without-God. This supports my view that you didn't reach your God conclusion through an examination of physical evidence. Good to know.

Asking who said God was testable does not even imply that it isn't.
I never said I reached my conclusion through physical evidence. And it seems I've told you this before.

I agree that the source of he law of nature is an open question. However, using your own method, the very least assumption is nothing, right? It's not the nothing that needs justification. It is the God. I'm interested how you get from the nothing to the God.
...
Would you be open to discussing the chain of pure logic that led to your current belief in God, then? As I said, I'm interested in how you went from your "very least assumption" of nothing to God. I'd like to follow your reasoning.

What is nothing? For starters, how do you identify it in everyday life? Not just some abstraction. How do you know there is nothing in or on somewhere/something without relying on any synonyms such as empty, zero, void, absent, lacking, not something, etc.?

 

[DaveC426913]

Just a belief. I'm not interested in putting on airs.

Granted.

Who said it was everywhere alive? I didn't. Maybe you should reread some of my posts.

I think this is needlessly argumentative. I have indeed read your posts.
You stated you believe it is alive.
You stated it is everywhere.
So it is logical to suppose at first blush that is alive, everywhere.

If you want to equivocate, that's really up to you, not to me.

Maybe - rather than offering incomplete tidbits, then waiting for someone to try to understand, then accusing them of not reading your posts - you could stop using the phrase "Who said...", and simply ... say.

I'll pause here. Would you rather I stop asking about your idea?

 

[Vociferous]

I think this is needlessly argumentative. I have indeed read your posts.
You stated you believe it is alive.
You stated it is everywhere.
So it is logical to suppose at first blush that is alive, everywhere.

Not my problem that you conflate the answers to two different questions.
Just a little thought on your part, that life simply doesn't exist everywhere, would have sorted it out for you.

Maybe - rather than offering incomplete tidbits, then waiting for someone to try to understand, then accusing them of not reading your posts - you could stop using the phrase "Who said...", and simply ... say.

Just trying to break you of all the unwarranted straw men. If you don't like how I post, tough. You have no obligation to respond.

I'll pause here. Would you rather I stop asking about your idea?

Why pause? And who implied anyone would rather you stop?

Sounds like you're just avoiding addressing the rest:

It can exist everywhere while not being alive everywhere, as "alive" usually denotes biological organisms, which are obviously not everywhere.


Who said anything about "influence"? The mechanism is not influence, it is the humans themselves.


No, I didn't. How do you propose human activity creates or manifests anything supernaturally?


I can't help it if you insist on a straw man that, what, it performs miracles.


Since the concept of God definitely exists, the idea that it contradicts its own natural laws would make the concept, at least, self-contradictory.


If God created life, how could God have already been alive, in the same sense? Maybe you should start by defining what you mean by life. Something other than biological organisms?


You have the conscious experience of being alive, but your thumb does not. Your thumb is alive, but there is a difference.
Again, perhaps you should define what you mean by "alive".


Again, it affects other things through humans, which do give off radiation.


You have yet to ask about the logic of traits like omniscience, omnipotence, etc.. And you've yet to suggest any logical inconsistency or contradiction in anything I've already told you. Can't defend what I haven't heard objections to.

I'm waiting for any objections, but so far, I've only seen straw men.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not my problem that you conflate the answers to two different questions.
Just a little thought on your part, that life simply doesn't exist everywhere, would have sorted it out for you.

No. This is your idea, and it's pretty unique. It requires elaboration.

You said God exists everywhere, including inside me, and is alive and conscious.
And you're criticizing me for asking how God can be alive and everywhere but not alive everywhere.

If you don't like how I post, tough. You have no obligation to respond.

OK. I've been pretty patient.
You initially offered one-word answers. I've asked questions about how to interpret them - even saying my conclusions must obviously be tentative, since your idea is clearly more nuanced than it appears from your one-word answers. That's an invite to elaborate. Instead, you prefer to accuse me of errors instead of simply elaborating.

If you don't like how I post, tough. You have no obligation to respond.

Why pause? And who implied anyone would rather you stop?[/QUOTE]
If you want to discuss your idea then discuss it in good faith. I'm not going to interrogate you as if you're a hostile, who can deride me every time you don't like my questions.

Sounds like you're just avoiding addressing the rest:

No, what it sounds like as that I'm not being the bad guy here, but you're determined to treat me as if I am. Why would I wish to continue that?

I'm waiting for any objections, but so far, I've only seen straw men.

Ah. well, now you've reframed this. You sit and watch while we must object.

There are no objections and no strawmen for a belief; you need not defend a belief.

But you have freely submitted it here (a few dozen posts back), as a possible solution to the topic. And that puts the onus on you to explain it, not on anyone else to pick through your one word answers and find objections.

Since you choose not to accept the onus of explaining, and instead put that onus on others, that is tantamount to a withdrawal of your idea from consideration in this discussion.

It's a pity. It would have been neat to discuss it. But rather than elaborate, you dodge questions by finding fault.

Carry on.

 

[Vociferous]

No. This is your idea, and it's pretty unique. It requires elaboration.

So I should just start expecting that you will conflate and assume anything and everything I don't explicitly explain to you?
No thanks, I'm not looking to write a book here. If you're not satisfied asking questions, even dumb ones (that assume life is everywhere), that's on you.

You said God exists everywhere, including inside me, and is alive and conscious.
And you're criticizing me for asking how God can be alive and everywhere but not alive everywhere.

And if you hadn't avoided the rest of that post, I explained how your thumb is not conscious, but it's still alive. Big difference. For like the third time, define your terms.
And in a previous post, I already told you "Not inside you, you." Again, reread my posts.

OK. I've been pretty patient.
You initially offered one-word answers. I've asked questions about how to interpret them - even saying my conclusions must obviously be tentative, since your idea is clearly more nuanced than it appears from your one-word answers. That's an invite to elaborate. Instead, you prefer to accuse me of errors instead of simply elaborating.

If you ask twenty questions, I'm not going to elaborate much. Again, not looking to write a book here. Now if you want to ask one, sort out your understanding of the answer, and then move on to your next question, so be it. I can't help it if those answers didn't provide the gotcha moment you may have been hoping for. Again, if you don't like how I post, you're under zero obligation to reply.

Since I have no idea what you're thinking, I have no idea what to elaborate on until you tell me. If you make a faulty assumption, maybe you should just accept that and move on, asking more questions. Whinging about it gets you no where.

Why pause? And who implied anyone would rather you stop?

If you want to discuss your idea then discuss it in good faith. I'm not going to interrogate you as if you're a hostile, who can deride me every time you don't like my questions.

I don't care, one way or the other, if I discuss my beliefs. I'm not proselytizing here, and I don't feel any need for the validating understanding/attention of others. If you're curious, I'll answer questions. Period.

No, what it sounds like as that I'm not being the bad guy here, but you're determined to treat me as if I am. Why would I wish to continue that?

I don't know, genuine curiosity and a thicker skin to strangers online?

Ah. well, now you've reframed this. You sit and watch while we must object.

There are no objections and no strawmen for a belief; you need not defend a belief.

But you have freely submitted it here (a few dozen posts back), as a possible solution to the topic. And that puts the onus on you to explain it, not on anyone else to pick through your one word answers and find objections.

Since you choose not to accept the onus of explaining, and instead put that onus on others, that is tantamount to a withdrawal of your idea from consideration in this discussion.

It's a pity. It would have been neat to discuss it. But rather than elaborate, you dodge questions by finding fault.

Carry on.

"Solution to the topic"? I never presented it as refuting atheism or solving anything at all. So where you imagine this onus to exist is anyone's guess.
Hey, tell yourself whatever you need to to justify begging off. No skin off my nose.

 

[Vociferous]

DaveC426913:

You initially engaged me in this thread by equivocating over what constitutes a "discussion", and you didn't let it go until I actually had to quote the definition of "discuss" for you. You even tried to pretend like you didn't literally ask about the "nature" of God. That's an odd way to enter what you claim is a good faith discussion. Compare that to James R's "point taken", about the need to discuss theism if trying to discuss atheism. That seems like a good faith response, and in contrast, yours set the tone of our interaction.

Then you equivocated over the definition of "supernatural", without ever providing a preferred one yourself or even being able to tell me how you would tell the difference. Then you ask if I consider the wind or dark matter supernatural, after I already told you I did not consider God supernatural, and claimed I was evasive because I took your argument, about shaking God's hand, on good faith. You conflated asking about a things "nature" and asking if it was real, only to then somehow conflate that with your beliefs. I've had to repeatedly quote my own posts and repeat myself where you have, I guess, ignored my answers.

So apparently your good faith discussion is a double standard that does not apply to you. Indicating that your whinging is just an excuse to beg off.

Ta-ta.

 

[davewhite04]

Something you're too shy to talk about?

Shy? I guess I have been shy, never was when I was younger, now I'm older I'm not shy. Cured.

 

[James R]

Vociferous:

Aside from a God violating the laws of nature, I can't see how anyone could tell the difference.

Doesn't that make God an unnecessary hypothesis? What would Mr Occam have to say?

If you have no alternative explanation to why there's something rather than nothing, there's really no need.

If your answer to why there is something rather than nothing is God, then doesn't that just bump the question back one more level? Now we need to ask why there is God rather than nothing.

An infinite regress is just a way to forever avoid explaining something, without any real justification.
But if you think infinite regresses are valid reasoning, please elaborate.

Your God explanation avoids infinite regress, certainly. The buck stops with your God. But why stop there? Isn't that an ad hoc solution with no justification?

I'm thinking here of the usual arguments that go along the lines of: everything must have a cause, therefore the universe must have a cause, therefore God. I have two problems with that argument. The first problem is that God seems like an arbitrary exception to the rule that everything must have a cause. What caused God? Why does God get to be an uncaused cause? The second problem is that the argument makes an unjustified leap from "the universe must have a cause" to the cause being a supreme being, usually with all kinds of assumed baggage (e.g. the God is a person, the God is conscious, the God planned the universe etc. etc.). It seems to me that other possible causes for the universe are ignored in this line of reasoning (e.g. the potential existence of a natural multiverse).

Also, when it comes to infinite regress, is your God finite or eternal? If your God is eternal, isn't that a form of infinite regress in itself? If your God has always existed, how is saying that more justified that saying, for example, that a multiverse has always existed?

All this God stuff sounds like special pleading to me.

What is nothing? For starters, how do you identify it in everyday life? Not just some abstraction. How do you know there is nothing in or on somewhere/something without relying on any synonyms such as empty, zero, void, absent, lacking, not something, etc.?

If you recall, it wasn't me who introduced the concept of "nothing" into this conversation. It was you. You assumed you needed an explanation for why there is something rather than this "nothing" you mentioned. If you're now saying that you're not sure what "nothing" is, then why do you think you need a God to explain it?

 

[James R]

One other thought:

If you believe that God is really indistinguishable from nature and the universe, then why attach the "God" label to it at all? For all you know, your "God" could be a synonym for the multiverse, or perhaps just the universe. The word "God", once introduced, immediately suggests a whole lot of baggage from religious traditions, and you say you don't believe all that stuff. So why call it God?

 

[Vociferous]

Doesn't that make God an unnecessary hypothesis? What would Mr Occam have to say?

Parsimony dictates the fewest assumptions that, critically, explain the most. You can make a single assumption that doesn't explain anything, but that doesn't make it parsimonious. The single assumption of God explains why there is something rather than nothing, for which there is no other explanation. Preferring to throw your hands up at such questions does not undermine the parsimony, no matter how incredulous you may find it.

If your answer to why there is something rather than nothing is God, then doesn't that just bump the question back one more level? Now we need to ask why there is God rather than nothing.

It would, if God were a something. But I would doubt you could find any religion that describes God as a thing. Now you could get into the weeds that "being" is defined as existence, but "a existence" or existence itself? IOW, if all existence is God itself (pantheism), the question hasn't been bumped back at all. It's still the exact same question.

Your God explanation avoids infinite regress, certainly. The buck stops with your God. But why stop there? Isn't that an ad hoc solution with no justification?

I'm thinking here of the usual arguments that go along the lines of: everything must have a cause, therefore the universe must have a cause, therefore God. I have two problems with that argument. The first problem is that God seems like an arbitrary exception to the rule that everything must have a cause. What caused God? Why does God get to be an uncaused cause? The second problem is that the argument makes an unjustified leap from "the universe must have a cause" to the cause being a supreme being, usually with all kinds of assumed baggage (e.g. the God is a person, the God is conscious, the God planned the universe etc. etc.). It seems to me that other possible causes for the universe are ignored in this line of reasoning (e.g. the potential existence of a natural multiverse).

Also, when it comes to infinite regress, is your God finite or eternal? If your God is eternal, isn't that a form of infinite regress in itself? If your God has always existed, how is saying that more justified that saying, for example, that a multiverse has always existed?

All this God stuff sounds like special pleading to me.

I generally agree that those kinds of argument are special pleading, ad hoc, etc.. I could get into better versions of the cosmological argument, but that would be a detour at this point.

An eternal God would have no apparent beginning, while our universe shows all evidence of having a beginning. And we have zero reason to think any other/previous physical universe would not have a beginning (quite aside from our lack of evidence for a multiverse in the first place). But my belief doesn't rely on that either.

What is nothing? For starters, how do you identify it in everyday life? Not just some abstraction. How do you know there is nothing in or on somewhere/something without relying on any synonyms such as empty, zero, void, absent, lacking, not something, etc.?

If you recall, it wasn't me who introduced the concept of "nothing" into this conversation. It was you. You assumed you needed an explanation for why there is something rather than this "nothing" you mentioned. If you're now saying that you're not sure what "nothing" is, then why do you think you need a God to explain it?

These are questions for you to answer in order to "follow [my] reasoning":

Would you be open to discussing the chain of pure logic that led to your current belief in God, then? As I said, I'm interested in how you went from your "very least assumption" of nothing to God. I'd like to follow your reasoning.

I know my answers, but unless you can reason it out for yourself, you're not likely to accept any further steps of the reasoning. It's an exercise in "know thyself". And well, why waste both our time if you're either unwilling or unable to do so?

 

[Vociferous]

One other thought:

If you believe that God is really indistinguishable from nature and the universe, then why attach the "God" label to it at all? For all you know, your "God" could be a synonym for the multiverse, or perhaps just the universe. The word "God", once introduced, immediately suggests a whole lot of baggage from religious traditions, and you say you don't believe all that stuff. So why call it God?

Because God is not just the physical universe. God is also the consistency of the laws that govern the physical universe, our subjective experience and free will, and other stuff that cannot be categorized in a materialist view. Pantheism alone typically only correlates God with the physical universe, not really accounting for abstractions of thought, experience, and natural laws.

 

[James R]

Vociferous:

Let me start with this, up front:

I know my answers, but unless you can reason it out for yourself, you're not likely to accept any further steps of the reasoning. It's an exercise in "know thyself". And well, why waste both our time if you're either unwilling or unable to do so?

The fact that I'm having this discussion with you at all ought to suggest to you that I'm interested in your position. There's no need for you to get defensive about it. It isn't that I'm unwilling to consider your line of reasoning. To me, it seems more like a case of you being unwilling to share it with me in more detail. Ability is a different question. It is conceivable that you're much smarter than I am, so that I won't be able to understand your reasoning. But we can't really know that unless you try to explain it to me.

You also seem to be under the impression that I have not "reasoned it out for myself". For my own part, I would say that I have spent quite some time thinking and reasoning about these matters. As a result, I have come to some conclusions of my own. That's not to say that I couldn't be wrong or that I have nothing else to learn.

If you regard your own reasons as too personal to discuss, or something like that, I understand. We don't have to have the discussion if you'd rather not. The same goes if you don't want to put in any more effort to explaining your position. You can certainly leave me to continue to "reason it out by myself" without your input, if that's what you prefer.

Moving on...

Parsimony dictates the fewest assumptions that, critically, explain the most. You can make a single assumption that doesn't explain anything, but that doesn't make it parsimonious. The single assumption of God explains why there is something rather than nothing, for which there is no other explanation. Preferring to throw your hands up at such questions does not undermine the parsimony, no matter how incredulous you may find it.

I don't regard the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being as a parsimonious explanation for the existence of our universe. It seems to me that a God is a very complicated thing, not a simple thing. Introducing God raises more questions than answers.

You say there's no other explanation, but is that true? It sounds to me like you just have a preference for one explanation over others.

The other issue I have with this is: why assume anything? Why assume there is a God, if there's no good reason to do so? Why not just be content to say that we don't currently know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe we'll find the answer in the future. To me, it sounds like you're pretending you know the answer already, when you don't really know at all.

It would, if God were a something. But I would doubt you could find any religion that describes God as a thing. Now you could get into the weeds that "being" is defined as existence, but "a existence" or existence itself? IOW, if all existence is God itself (pantheism), the question hasn't been bumped back at all. It's still the exact same question.

Again, the problem I have with that is that I think it makes "God" just a synonym for "everything" or for "existence" or whatever. Why use the word "God", when we already have the words "everything" and "existence"? What value does God add to this worldview?

I generally agree that those kinds of argument are special pleading, ad hoc, etc..

Okay. Good.

I could get into better versions of the cosmological argument, but that would be a detour at this point.

Given my current knowledge, all I can say is that I am unconvinced by any of the versions of the cosmological argument that I'm aware of (and I'm aware of a few). Do any of them convince you?

An eternal God would have no apparent beginning, while our universe shows all evidence of having a beginning. And we have zero reason to think any other/previous physical universe would not have a beginning (quite aside from our lack of evidence for a multiverse in the first place). But my belief doesn't rely on that either.

I agree that our universe had a beginning, with the caveat that we don't really understand how time works in very earliest stages of the big bang. You say that we have zero reason to think that a multiverse wouldn't have a beginning. I say we have no reason to think that it would.

As for lack of evidence, we agree that my lack of evidence for a multiverse is on a par with your lack of evidence for God, don't we? So, we can't decide between those two hypotheses on the basis of (currently available) evidence.

Because God is not just the physical universe.

A multiverse obviously wouldn't be, either.

God is also the consistency of the laws that govern the physical universe, our subjective experience and free will, and other stuff that cannot be categorized in a materialist view.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with ideas about multiverses, so forgive me if I'm telling you something you already know. Not all multiverse ideas require consistency in the laws of physics. Some multiverse ideas posit the idea of "bubble universes", with each causally-separate universe containing its own set of physical laws (or at least its own group of "settings" for such laws, in the form of fundamental constants such as the strengths of fundamental forces in the universe). Using such ideas, our universe could just be one of an uncountable number of possible worlds.

As for subjective experience, I have no reason to think that our subjective experience is grounded in anything other than physical reality.

As for free will, my views on that topic are on the record elsewhere on sciforums, at length. To summarise briefly: I don't think that free will requires the presence or intervention of a deity. Tentatively, I don't even think it is incompatible with determinism. And I disagree with your position that free will cannot be explained from a materialist perspective.

Pantheism alone typically only correlates God with the physical universe, not really accounting for abstractions of thought, experience, and natural laws.

Do you believe that our thoughts and/or feelings require something other than physical reality to account for them fully? Do you believe, for example, that God is needed for human beings to be free, or to be conscious, or stuff like that? I appreciate that this is a silly question, in the sense that you believe that God is needed for anything to exist, which would include consciousness and free will necessarily. But do you think that free will or consciousness etc. is an especially good pointer to the existence of God?

 

[DaveC426913]

The fact that I'm having this discussion with you at all ought to suggest to you that I'm interested in your position. There's no need for you to get defensive about it. It isn't that I'm unwilling to consider your line of reasoning. To me, it seems more like a case of you being unwilling to share it with me in more detail.

Pretty much exactly what I experienced and what I said.

I can't really blame the guy. SciFo is not exactly supportive* of beliefs, especially of the God kind.
*yourself excepted. I'm not as patient as you. He's not exactly wrong to be defensive with us, since we've shown him we bite.

Maybe you'll have better luck and I'll lurk. It's at least more interesting than the usual God party line we hear here.

Carry on.

 

[paddoboy]

*yourself excepted. I'm not as patient as you. He's not exactly wrong to be defensive with us, since we've shown him we bite.
.

Yet it certainly condones/supports/tolerates the unscientific position far more than most other forums.

 

[Michael 345]

Because God is not just the physical universe. God is also the consistency of the laws that govern the physical universe, our subjective experience and free will, and other stuff that cannot be categorized in a materialist view. Pantheism alone typically only correlates God with the physical universe, not really accounting for abstractions of thought, experience, and natural laws

In other words

Internalised as a warm fuzzy feeling

 

[davewhite04]

Yet it certainly condones/supports/tolerates the unscientific position far more than most other forums.

Because it's the "Religion" forum. Inside the "Philosophy" forum.