A phone conversation with a muslim missionary

[bob x]

Quite right. "It's TRUE, dammit! That's why it's true."
It's self evident to me.
Not to you.
But to me it's self-evident that it is true.

That is not how the word "self-evident" is generally used. A truth is "self-evident" if ANYONE can look at the statement and see the rightness of it. If it is only evident to you, and not to others, there is no "self" evidence about the statement. I'm sorry, but I am reminded of the quote (can't remember who gets credit for it; it's not my line), "If you can't explain it to someone, then you don't understand it." It sounds to me as if you really haven't thought about this.

It is wrong to say that the relative strength of the influences "causes" the outcome unless the "strengths" are something that exists before the choice. The way you are talking, it seems that the "strengths" don't exist until afterward: if A is the result, you determine after the fact that the A influence was "stronger", or if B wins out, the reverse; but you cannot assign any "strengths" to A and B beforehand. By contrast, the way I would define "strengths" of A and B is by objective factors that could be measured before: and the way the world works turns out to be that, if the influence for A is stronger than the influence for B, then A is most likely to happen, but B still happens sometimes.

I thought my illustration of suicide was a strong way to phrase my argument.

No suicide victim could possibly have changed their mind, all influences and lack of influences being considered.

That's very odd. I would have thought that suicide was the weakest possible example for you to choose, since suicides are generally quite inexplicable to the survivors; it seems like the least likely kind of behavior to have any complete "explanation" in terms of the influences operating beforehand.

If this is too personal, don't answer, but it was speculated before that maybe you regret some choices you made in your past, and cling to the notion that you couldn't have done better at the time. Did you have some loved one commit suicide on you? And were you tormented by some "survivor guilt" that it was somehow your fault? If so, PLEASE, let it go: it was NOT your fault. NO-ONE understands why people do that.

The assumption being that there is indeed something fundamentally different or "special" about human consciousness versus the amoebas.

For an AI discussion group, I am working on a presentation distinguishing three aspects of what is loosely termed "consciousness":
"Intellect" is the amount of information-processing that goes on; this is what the computer can readily emulate, and easily beat us on.
"Qualia" is that appearance of "reality" that our perceptions have, as in that essay (Google it if you've never read it) "What it is like to be a bat?" Is it "like" anything to be a Macintosh?
"Agency" is the formulation of purposes, and taking actions towards them (what we are arguing about here). If you program a computer to simulate purposeful behavior, but there is a stupid bug in your code, the computer will not say, "AHA! This program is supposed to serve a purpose!" but instead will do whatever the buggy code dictates. Are we any different, really? Some of our behavior certainly looks like "buggy software" run amuck; but Christ and Buddha in their different ways tell us that we can get past that.

In terms of the amoeba, its "intellect" is very dim (if an amoeba is "aware", it isn't aware of very much) and we can hardly imagine the "qualia" to be much better (what is it "like" to be an amoeba? probably not a very thrilling existence), but apparently it does still have "agency" (within its limited scope).

Seems ironic that in order to make a theory deterministic, we need to look for non-material "hidden variables".

Well, it's just a fact that, if the material is all that there is, it's NOT deterministic. Our mind rebels against that: "everything must have a cause!" is just "self-evident", right? It's not just rodgertutt; you and I also strongly feel that this "has to" be right! Maybe the "self-evident" truth is, this time, false (a reflection of hard-wired insistent patterns of thought in humans, which the universe unfortunately disagrees with)-- but that's just too scary. The attempts to save determinism do have, however, a whiff of more and more "epicycles" being invented to save the perfect-circle theory of heavenly motions. (Now HERE is an irony: I read somewhere that Ptolemy himself actually did not believe that planetary motions were perfect circles, and that he may even have anticipated Kepler's result that they are conic sections; what he was doing with his "epicycles" was something the medievals couldn't understand, what we now call Fourier analysis; he was the first to compute thorough tables of the trig functions, and believed-- correctly, though he could not prove it-- that any non-circular periodic motion could be approximated by summing trig functions of differing frequencies.)

if chaotic behavior is being reflected in any system, then it follows that local realism should also be true at that level. And if a quantum system can be shown to be behaving in a positivist manner, then it should follow that all processes in that system are material and all the variables are controlled by the distribution of particles in space time.

I'm very very sorry, but that is precisely de Broglie's original version of the "hidden variables" approach, the one that von Neumann proved irreconcilable with the evidence; and Bell extended von Neumann's proof to other classes of "naive" hidden-variable approaches.

OK, enough long-windedness for me tonight. To bed!

 

[c0de]

I'm very very sorry, but that is precisely de Broglie's original version of the "hidden variables" approach, the one that von Neumann proved irreconcilable with the evidence; and Bell extended von Neumann's proof to other classes of "naive" hidden-variable approaches.

Yes, but the discovery of behavior which resembles classical chaos in the quantum world adds to the evidence, does it not? Especially since the manner in which the question is being framed these days, seems like a renewed attack on QM:

"If quantum mechanics does not demonstrate an exponential sensitivity to initial conditions, how can exponential sensitivity to initial conditions arise in classical chaos, which must be the correspondence principle limit of quantum mechanics? The veracity of non-classical theories depends on their ability to reproduce the same results as classical mechanics in the classical limit, so this remains a significant question regarding quantum mechanics.[5][6]"

In terms of the amoeba, its "intellect" is very dim (if an amoeba is "aware", it isn't aware of very much) and we can hardly imagine the "qualia" to be much better (what is it "like" to be an amoeba? probably not a very thrilling existence), but apparently it does still have "agency" (within its limited scope).

Consider the fact that the amoeba's entire world consists of two dimensions. So of course we would think it is dimwitted. But the world as it appears to us is also very different than the way it actually is. I am sure according to some standards of measurement, we are the amoebas of the third dimension (higher up on the food chain yes, but amoebas nonetheless).

Are we any different, really? Some of our behavior certainly looks like "buggy software" run amuck; but Christ and Buddha in their different ways tell us that we can get past that.

If Agency and Intellect is a prerequisite for consciousness, then I can easily imagine an AI as possessing it. "Qualia" on the other hand is too ambiguous a term to be considered a pre-req for anything. Who can genuinely answer the question: what does it feel like to be human? Like I said, it seems more dependent on the number of neurons and their arrangement then anything else.

I am pretty sure humanity will never be capable of replicating the conditions present in our own brain to be able to pass it on to an A.I (I am pretty sure our species will tear itself apart before our knowledge and technology reaches that level). But if it did, I am sure you could create an artificial human being which can ponder on questions regarding "qualia".

As for theocratic systems in general, I don't know if their original teachings (at least in the Abrahamic traditions) actually tell us we can get past our code, because that would imply we can rise to the level of gods. In Islam for example, most of that was added by Sufism later on ("union" with God etc.) The Torah also isn't too big on it, I'm sure.

Well, it's just a fact that, if the material is all that there is, it's NOT deterministic. Our mind rebels against that: "everything must have a cause!" is just "self-evident", right? It's not just rodgertutt; you and I also strongly feel that this "has to" be right! Maybe the "self-evident" truth is, this time, false (a reflection of hard-wired insistent patterns of thought in humans, which the universe unfortunately disagrees with)-- but that's just too scary. The attempts to save determinism do have, however, a whiff of more and more "epicycles" being invented to save the perfect-circle theory of heavenly motions.

No causality eh? Reminds me of Occasionalism and Subjective Idealism. I was about to forget the lessons that al-Ghazali and George Berkley were preaching. Good timing. Although, I will still reject free will simply because it clashes with God's omnipotence/omniscience.

(Now HERE is an irony: I read somewhere that Ptolemy himself actually did not believe that planetary motions were perfect circles, and that he may even have anticipated Kepler's result that they are conic sections; what he was doing with his "epicycles" was something the medievals couldn't understand, what we now call Fourier analysis; he was the first to compute thorough tables of the trig functions, and believed-- correctly, though he could not prove it-- that any non-circular periodic motion could be approximated by summing trig functions of differing frequencies.)

The same thing kind of happened to Einstein. His own theory was telling him something but he wouldn't accept it until it was proven by observation... can't remember what it was. He called it his greatest blunder.

 

[rodgertutt]

if the influence for A is stronger than the influence for B, then A is most likely to happen, but B still happens sometimes.

If the influence for A is strongest then the influence for B will never happen.

I would have thought that suicide was the weakest possible example for you to choose, since suicides are generally quite inexplicable to the survivors; it seems like the least likely kind of behavior to have any complete "explanation" in terms of the influences operating beforehand.

At the time that they actually do it, no one can help committing suicide.
They are responding to the strongest combination of influences, or lack of influences that are being brought to bear upon their minds at that moment.

If this is too personal, don't answer, but it was speculated before that maybe you regret some choices you made in your past, and cling to the notion that you couldn't have done better at the time.

We all regret choices we have made in our past.
But that is not why I "cling to the notion" that at that point in time it was not possible for me to choose anything else.
It is always true that we will choose whatever the combined sets of influences is CAUSING us to choose what we do choose.

Did you have some loved one commit suicide on you? And were you tormented by some "survivor guilt" that it was somehow your fault? If so, PLEASE, let it go: it was NOT your fault. NO-ONE understands why people do that.

No, fortunately that is not part of my experience.
But thanks for the wise advice.

 

[rodgertutt]

I will still reject free will simply because it clashes with God's omnipotence/omniscience.

Me too!

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

I very much like this explanation by A.P. Adams

The Spirit of the Word - Free Moral Agency

 

[citizenzen]

I will still reject free will simply because it clashes with God's omnipotence/omniscience.

Me too!

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Hmmm... That's funny, because earlier Rodger said...

Nope, that's not faith, it's fact.

There is nothing wrong with having faith, but it is a poor basis for a logical argument. Had Rodger and Code stated up front, "I base my argument on faith" then their positions would have made far more sense and the discussion would have been much shorter.

In an interfaith discussion there should be no desire to convert another member. We are here to share our perspectives. But there should be honesty in admitting when one's argument rests upon their particular faith. When instead, an argument is presented as "self-evident" "fact" then they have ventured into dishonesty, or at best self-delusion.

I can only hope that in the future these members will frame their positions more openly and let the rest of us know in advance the futility of pointing out logical or evidential fallacies. When arguments are dismissed "simply because it clashes with God's omnipotence/omniscience" then you are "simply" wasting everyone else's time.

 

[rodgertutt]

My "faith" is in the logic of my argument.

Just because an electron changes from being a weaker to sometimes being the strongest for no apparant reason does not prove "free" will.

During the act of making a choice, it is not possible for you to choose something that is not having the strongest influence on your mind.

I maintain that is logically impossible. Thus, no "free will."

The combined influence of internal preference, i.e. finally deciding what we want MOST after due deliberation, plus external persuasive considerations will CAUSE all choices to occur inevitably.

The exact same set of influences in the exact same situation (if that were possible) would always produce the exact same choice in the exact same person.

That is why it is not even possible to have chosen differently than we did at any given point in time.

 

[citizenzen]

My "faith" is in the logic of my argument.

That's not what you just said when you agreed with C0de.

Perhaps you should read it again... I think the words were pretty clear.

Thanks for wasting my time Rodger. It sure was fun.

We should do it again real soon.

 

[rodgertutt]

That's not what you just said when you agreed with C0de.

Perhaps you should read it again... I think the words were pretty clear.

Thanks for wasting my time Rodger. It sure was fun.

We should do it again real soon.

Both are true.

I believe in the logic of my conclusion.

And I also believe in the intimate sovereign control of God.

The Spirit of the Word - Free Moral Agency

 

[bob x]

Yes, but the discovery of behavior which resembles classical chaos in the quantum world adds to the evidence, does it not?

But it doesn't subtract from the evidence! For example, the theory that "The Sun ALWAYS rises in the north" is completely untenable, once we have (frequently) observed the Sun rising in the east. Additional observations, that way up in Lapland some days around the summer solstice the Sun will just barely dip below the horizon and come back up again, in the far north, are an interesting addition to our data-set, helping to clarify what this "North Pole" thing is all about and maybe leading to an understanding of how the axis of the Earth relates to the actual motions which appear as the Sun "rising" and "setting" and blah blah blah-- BUT, the theory that "the Sun ALWAYS rises in the north" cannot be salvaged once observation has decisively refuted it.

The theory that "The spatiotemporal distribution of the material particles ALWAYS determines what happens next" cannot be salvaged either. It's been decisively refuted.

If Agency and Intellect is a prerequisite for consciousness, then I can easily imagine an AI as possessing it. "Qualia" on the other hand is too ambiguous a term to be considered a pre-req for anything.

I am not setting "pre-requisites"; I am just trying to clarify that when people talk about "consciousness" there is a vague blurring-together of several separable concepts, and I am trying to sort out what these are.

I am pretty sure humanity will never be capable of replicating the conditions present in our own brain to be able to pass it on to an A.I

I think we can, but only if we endow it with a mechanism for magnifying quantum-indeterminate events up to the level of making macroscopic-level differences. The digital computer is designed to do the exact opposite: we define certain levels of current or magnetism in this or that component as the "1" state and the "0" state, and make sure that any of the inevitable minor fluctuations away from these ideals (to a "0.999" state or a "0.001" state) make no difference whatsoever to what happens next (as long as the fluctuations get nowhere near "0.50", and we can keep the quantum probability of that happening down to 10-to-the-minus-ridiculous). But if we build an A.I. that can "freely" choose which of its programs to run (that is, the decision is based on an inherently unpredictable quantum transition), which really does "have a mind of its own" and no longer just does what we tell it, then we have created something a little dangerous.

No causality eh?

I don't actually believe that. I just don't think we can rule it out, particularly not on the grounds of "My mind really doesn't like to think that."

I will still reject free will simply because it clashes with God's omnipotence/omniscience.

Thank you for your honesty. I myself totally reject any anthropomorphic concept of "God" so I don't have this problem. As humans, we precalculate possible future outcomes, have certain things we "like" and "don't like", and take actions designed to bring about the outcomes we like; and, we have an ingrained habit of thought which views anything we look at, first and foremost, through this model that it operates this same way. Our natural inclination is to think that the lightning bolt "deliberately" destroyed a building because it "didn't like" it, and we want to know what made the Lightning Guy so angry; if a golf shot slices off in some awful direction, we bash the golf club into a tree to "punish" it, thinking that the club "intentionally" did that to us. That the lightning acts completely impersonally, following a path of least resistance without any precalculation of where it is going; that the golf club doesn't "care" which way the shot goes, and doesn't feel "injured" when it is struck against a tree; these are truths we have to fight to realize.

The Abrahamic concept of "God" is a mind that works just like ours, with the exceptions that all God's precalculations of the future are correct (unlike ours!), and all God's actions are sufficient to bring about the outcomes he "likes" (unlike ours!). When you add such a being to your picture of the universe, it seems as if it is totally pointless for any other being to exist. Why does God create people, if people don't actually "do" anything? I think this concept of "God" is just a typical example of our tendency to anthropomorphize entities that are, actually, nothing like us.

The same thing kind of happened to Einstein. His own theory was telling him something but he wouldn't accept it until it was proven by observation... can't remember what it was. He called it his greatest blunder.

The "cosmological constant": general relativity didn't just accommodate an attraction caused by matter, but a weird repulsion if matter-free space has a nonzero energy density.

At the time that they actually do it, no one can help committing suicide.

Why do you believe that? Suicides always strongly create the exact opposite impression, that they could easily have not happened. A college girl committed suicide after her boyfriend failed to call her back one night: what a weak, and apparently quite insufficient, motive! "She could have done so many other things: she could have baked cookies, and given them out to strangers on the street!" was one reaction. You think that is not correct, but you give no reason, no reason at all, to support your counterintuitive belief.

But that is not why I "cling to the notion" that at that point in time it was not possible for me to choose anything else.
It is always true that we will choose whatever the combined sets of influences is CAUSING us to choose what we do choose.

I am asking WHY. All you do is repeat THAT you believe this. We all know by now, quite well, THAT you believe it. When you say "that is not why..." it gives us this false hope that you will follow up with "THIS is why..." instead of just repeating it without any attempt to give a reason.

My "faith" is in the logic of my argument.

There is no shred of logic in anything you have said. "It is true because it is true" is not a logical argument.

Just because an electron changes from being a weaker to sometimes being the strongest for no apparant reason does not prove "free" will.

[emphasis added]
You seem to be redefining "strength" as something that doesn't exist until after the outcome, but this just moves the problem of "freedom" somewhere else. Up until the fork in the road, A appears to be stronger than B, by every material measurable criterion, but B just "becomes" stronger, for no reason? Isn't that the same thing as saying that it freely decides to become stronger?

This is how I am using the word "free": it happens for no apparent reason, that is to say, not caused by anything in the entire material universe; that doesn't mean it happens for no reason, but if there exists a "non-apparent" reason, it is "independent of", and this is the sense in which I see it is "free of", all the material pre-conditions.

 

[rodgertutt]

Why do you believe that? Suicides always strongly create the exact opposite impression, that they could easily have not happened. A college girl committed suicide after her boyfriend failed to call her back one night: what a weak, and apparently quite insufficient, motive! "She could have done so many other things: she could have baked cookies, and given them out to strangers on the street!" was one reaction. You think that is not correct, but you give no reason, no reason at all, to support your counterintuitive belief.

Exactly my point. There simply was none of those positive influences present to CAUSE them not to commit suicide, while at the same time the unbearable suffering they were experiencing became the strongest influence in their decision.

There is no shred of logic in anything you have said. "It is true because it is true" is not a logical argument.

IMO, my reasoning is 100% logical.

Just because an electron changes from being a weaker to sometimes being the strongest for no apparant reason does not prove "free" will.

During the act of making a choice, it is not possible for you to choose something that is not having the strongest influence on your mind.

I maintain that is logically impossible. Thus, no "free will."

The combined influence of internal preference, i.e. finally deciding what we want MOST after due deliberation, plus external persuasive considerations will CAUSE all choices to occur inevitably.

The exact same set of influences in the exact same situation (if that were possible) would always produce the exact same choice in the exact same person.

That is why it is not even possible to have chosen differently than we did at any given point in time.

[emphasis added]
You seem to be redefining "strength" as something that doesn't exist until after the outcome, but this just moves the problem of "freedom" somewhere else. Up until the fork in the road, A appears to be stronger than B, by every material measurable criterion, but B just "becomes" stronger, for no reason? Isn't that the same thing as saying that it freely decides to become stronger?

This is how I am using the word "free": it happens for no apparent reason, that is to say, not caused by anything in the entire material universe; that doesn't mean it happens for no reason, but if there exists a "non-apparent" reason, it is "independent of", and this is the sense in which I see it is "free of", all the material pre-conditions.

Even if it happened for no apparant reason, it still HAD to happen, because it could not be prevented. And so did every choice we ever made HAVE to happen.

 

[bob x]

Exactly my point. There simply was none of those positive influences present to CAUSE them not to commit suicide

Quite the contrary, the positive influences were all around! This is what makes such things totally inexplicable.

the unbearable suffering they were experiencing became the strongest influence in their decision.

Why? There is nothing about the suffering to make it appear any "stronger" than other sufferings that people bear easily. Sometimes the "suffering" appears to be quite trivial. Does this word strongest has ANY MEANING AT ALL in your language? Can you define any way in which, before the outcome, one influence can be called "stronger" than another? If it is only after the outcome that one influence can be called "stronger" (which sounds like what you are saying), then it is totally false to say that the relative strengths of the influence is what "causes" the outcome; the strengths are "effects" not "causes" if they do not exist beforehand.

IMO, my reasoning is 100% logical.

"It must be, and I say again that it must be: that is why it must be" is not "logic", not even 1%. All I hear you say is that you, personally, are not able to see what I am saying; but you do know that other people are able to see it, so that would be just a deficiency in your mental perception, if that is true. Incorrigible believer in freedom that I am, however, I think the truth is that you are unwilling to see what I am saying, because the notion of an omnipotent/omniscient God has some emotional value to you.

Even if it happened for no apparant reason, it still HAD to happen

It had to happen because the will "freely" chose it. That is how I am using the word "freely": when there is no "apparent" reason, that is, nothing in the entire observable material universe which would explain it, then the choice of the will is "free" of the material preconditions.

 

[rodgertutt]

Quite the contrary, the positive influences were all around! This is what makes such things totally inexplicable.

The positive influences were all around except inside the mind of the individual involved. Only hopelessness and emotional anguish is inside their mind when they commit suicide. No person in their right mind would do it.

Why? There is nothing about the suffering to make it appear any "stronger" than other sufferings that people bear easily. Sometimes the "suffering" appears to be quite trivial. Does this word strongest has ANY MEANING AT ALL in your language? Can you define any way in which, before the outcome, one influence can be called "stronger" than another? If it is only after the outcome that one influence can be called "stronger" (which sounds like what you are saying), then it is totally false to say that the relative strengths of the influence is what "causes" the outcome; the strengths are "effects" not "causes" if they do not exist beforehand.

Strongest means overwhelmingly influential negative thinking causing a totally inability to successfully cope. Evidently you not only have not experienced this, but you can't even accept that this condition exists.

"It must be, and I say again that it must be: that is why it must be" is not "logic", not even 1%. All I hear you say is that you, personally, are not able to see what I am saying; but you do know that other people are able to see it, so that would be just a deficiency in your mental perception, if that is true. Incorrigible believer in freedom that I am, however, I think the truth is that you are unwilling to see what I am saying, because the notion of an omnipotent/omniscient God has some emotional value to you.

It had to happen because the will "freely" chose it. That is how I am using the word "freely": when there is no "apparent" reason, that is, nothing in the entire observable material universe which would explain it, then the choice of the will is "free" of the material preconditions.

No will "freely" chooses anything. Every choice is CAUSED to occur by a combination of influences. There can be no such a thing as choosing what you don't want MORE than choosing something else.

 

[c0de]

.



@ CZ + Bob

Hmmm... That's funny, because earlier Rodger said...

There is nothing wrong with having faith, but it is a poor basis for a logical argument. Had Rodger and Code stated up front, "I base my argument on faith" then their positions would have made far more sense and the discussion would have been much shorter.

In an interfaith discussion there should be no desire to convert another member. We are here to share our perspectives. But there should be honesty in admitting when one's argument rests upon their particular faith. When instead, an argument is presented as "self-evident" "fact" then they have ventured into dishonesty, or at best self-delusion.

I can only hope that in the future these members will frame their positions more openly and let the rest of us know in advance the futility of pointing out logical or evidential fallacies. When arguments are dismissed "simply because it clashes with God's omnipotence/omniscience" then you are "simply" wasting everyone else's time.

???

I never tried to argue a faith based position by using logic. I already know faith and rationality are not compatible. Now, if you'll excuse me...






@ Bob

But it doesn't subtract from the evidence! For example, the theory that "The Sun ALWAYS rises in the north" is completely untenable, once we have (frequently) observed the Sun rising in the east. Additional observations, that way up in Lapland some days around the summer solstice the Sun will just barely dip below the horizon and come back up again, in the far north, are an interesting addition to our data-set, helping to clarify what this "North Pole" thing is all about and maybe leading to an understanding of how the axis of the Earth relates to the actual motions which appear as the Sun "rising" and "setting" and blah blah blah-- BUT, the theory that "the Sun ALWAYS rises in the north" cannot be salvaged once observation has decisively refuted it.

The theory that "The spatiotemporal distribution of the material particles ALWAYS determines what happens next" cannot be salvaged either. It's been decisively refuted.

Okay lets not go overboard. A loophole does exist, and it is possible to escape Bell's theorem (hence the possibility of a superdeterministic theory remains).

But if we build an A.I. that can "freely" choose which of its programs to run (that is, the decision is based on an inherently unpredictable quantum transition), which really does "have a mind of its own" and no longer just does what we tell it, then we have created something a little dangerous.

Not just dangerous to us, but dangerous to itself. Think about it: What would stop a billion dollar true-A.I. from committing suicide? Or making just as many mistakes as we make? We assume that an A.I. would be this quantum leap in efficiency, but what if it just feels overwhelmed by all the "possibilities" like most real people?

I don't actually believe that. I just don't think we can rule it out, particularly not on the grounds of "My mind really doesn't like to think that."

I actually have very little problem with thinking in "zero causal" terms. At least not in the framework of occasionalism.

Thank you for your honesty. I myself totally reject any anthropomorphic concept of "God" so I don't have this problem. As humans, we precalculate possible future outcomes, have certain things we "like" and "don't like", and take actions designed to bring about the outcomes we like; and, we have an ingrained habit of thought which views anything we look at, first and foremost, through this model that it operates this same way. Our natural inclination is to think that the lightning bolt "deliberately" destroyed a building because it "didn't like" it, and we want to know what made the Lightning Guy so angry; if a golf shot slices off in some awful direction, we bash the golf club into a tree to "punish" it, thinking that the club "intentionally" did that to us. That the lightning acts completely impersonally, following a path of least resistance without any precalculation of where it is going; that the golf club doesn't "care" which way the shot goes, and doesn't feel "injured" when it is struck against a tree; these are truths we have to fight to realize.

The Abrahamic concept of "God" is a mind that works just like ours, with the exceptions that all God's precalculations of the future are correct (unlike ours!), and all God's actions are sufficient to bring about the outcomes he "likes" (unlike ours!). When you add such a being to your picture of the universe, it seems as if it is totally pointless for any other being to exist. Why does God create people, if people don't actually "do" anything? I think this concept of "God" is just a typical example of our tendency to anthropomorphize entities that are, actually, nothing like us.

It seems you have only been exposed to mainstream Abrahamic thought. I used to think in these terms as well. But not anymore.

A lightning has just as much a chance of striking the good, as it does the wicked. I don't believe in "karma" or pop-culture versions of religion. Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people, more often then not.

As for the "why" questions behind our existence, it's just like asking "why" a painter paints? Or why a poet writes? God, creates. And that's just the way it is.

 

[citizenzen]

I already know faith and rationality are not compatible.

And you've demonstrated that quite clearly.

 

[c0de]

And you've demonstrated that quite clearly.

guess that means you're not even gonna try to back up your attempted attack on me now...

nice try bud (well, not really. but I can see you're trying desperately)... better luck next time



p.s. by the way, am I still on your "ignore list" then?? (LoL)

 

[rodgertutt]

Referring back to my first post and the name of the thread I started.
"A phone conversation with a Muslim missionary"

Millions of Christians think that non-Christians are going to an eternal hell when they die.

Millions of Muslims think that non-Muslims are going to an eternal hell when they die.
The Afterlife in Islam - ReligionFacts

What "free will" do you think a child has who has been taught this frightening senerio by their parents and religious leaders of ever successfully escaping from this kind of religious control?

It takes exposure to a stronger set of influences before anyone can escape. Then the new information will CAUSE their will to choose an alternate way of thinking. Our will is only "free" to choose the SRONGEST combination of influences.

I don't know if any Muslim universalist literature exists.
But I do know there is lots of Christian universalist literature on the internet, and it's existence is a great blessing to many who have read it.

TWO TREASURE HOUSES OF CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALIST ARTICLES
Christian Universalism Articles by Title
Christian Universalism Articles

 

[rodgertutt]

Quote from link
"Non-Muslims (kafir), however, will be punished eternally."
The Afterlife in Islam - ReligionFacts

 

[c0de]

Quote from link
"Non-Muslims (kafir), however, will be punished eternally."
The Afterlife in Islam - ReligionFacts

2:62
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and
the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good,
they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for
them, nor shall they grieve.
​

 

[rodgertutt]

2:62

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and
the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good,
they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for
them, nor shall they grieve.​

But unfortunately, Quote from link on Islam's belief in the afterlife.
"Non-Muslims (kafir), however, will be punished eternally."
The Afterlife in Islam - ReligionFacts

Muslims who do bad will have limited punishment.
But non-Muslims who do bad will have eternal punishment.

 

[c0de]

But unfortunately, Quote from link on Islam's belief in the afterlife.

That was some random website you found on google

I gave you a verse from our scripture itself.