There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

pattimax said:
Actually, it isn't. It is based on the revealed word of God. Unbelief is speculation. Throwing His Word away and calling it a game of telephone is speculation.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this means.

I'm not very fluent in Christian, and will need the help of an interpreter.
 
pattimax said:
Your position that there is no God is purely speculative.
Click to expand...

It may be a fine point, but I'll try to explain it.

I'm really not here to say, "God doesn't exist." I have no reason to hold that view or put it forth.

You (Christians) are the ones saying that God exists.

I am saying that I've never seen evidence that compels me to accept your claim.

Add God creating man in His image, Adam and Eve, Noah, the inerrancy of the Bible, a 10,000 year old Earth, virgin birth, resurrection and countless other claims (take your pick as which ones you accept or not) and your burden of proof becomes even greater.

Yet, there is no evidence. So I remain unconvinced, and quite content to live without a God, though open to the possibility that one might exist or might not, given enough evidence to prove one side or the other.
 
citizenzen said:
I'm really not here to say, "God doesn't exist." I have no reason to hold that view or put it forth.

You (Christians) are the ones saying that God exists.

I am saying that I've never seen evidence that compels me to accept your claim.
Click to expand...

What would you accept as evidence?

Do you believe some things are true and others are false?
 
pattimax said:
What would you accept as evidence?

Do you believe some things are true and others are false?
Click to expand...

I would accept many things as evidence. If it is something outside the realm of my thoughts and feelings it would have to be physical and verifiable. But I would also accept as evidence the presence of God in my heart and mind. In either case there has been no evidence of God.

Do I believe some things are true and others false? Sure. But please be careful in trying to prove God this way. If it were a valid method of proving God's existence I'd have been a believer long ago (being a relatively rational and logical man). But go ahead, give it your best shot.
 
Personally, I see science and the things that are uncovered every day as proof of God. You may not see it as proof, per-say, but I think that it definitely points to something bigger, or some kind of plan. Just seeing the way that things are put together so neatly, atoms, cells, DNA, the intricacy of ecosystems around the world and yet the way that they work within themselves so flawlessly. The building of a baby inside the world, and the level of complication put into that. The absence of waste within those ecosystems. It's all proof of something more to me. That's enough for me to know. Just my views, maybe they will help.
 
immortalitylost said:
Personally, I see science and the things that are uncovered every day as proof of God. You may not see it as proof, per-say, but I think that it definitely points to something bigger, or some kind of plan. Just seeing the way that things are put together so neatly, atoms, cells, DNA, the intricacy of ecosystems around the world and yet the way that they work within themselves so flawlessly. The building of a baby inside the world, and the level of complication put into that. The absence of waste within those ecosystems. It's all proof of something more to me. That's enough for me to know. Just my views, maybe they will help.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate them, they do not constitute proof, as there may be reasons behind it other than a deity. The fact that we can't say what those reasons are does not make it more likely that God is the answer. We just don't know. And to conclude that God therefore exists is a leap of faith and not a product of evidence.
 
pattimax said:
Are you implying that thoughts and feelings are merely chemical reactions?
Click to expand...

It's clear through studies of the brain and how injuries and drugs can affect cognition and personality that our brains—or as you imply, "mere chemical reactions"—play the key role.

I am open to the possibility that the brain plays the only role in this process. There is more than enough evidence to support the brain's role as the source for thoughts and feelings.

I am also open to the possibility that consciousness exists independently and our brain acts to tune into, focus and interpret this consciousness. In either case, whether as sole source or conduit of consciousness, thoughts and feelings require a brain.

pattimax said:
Do you think your thoughts and feelings were "installed" at the factory like a car radio?
Click to expand...

This is a meaningless question. If the above answer doesn't provide enough information, I'll be happy to address further questions, provided they make sense.
 
pattimax said:
Actually, it isn't. It is based on the revealed word of God. Unbelief is speculation. Throwing His Word away and calling it a game of telephone is speculation.
Click to expand...

Um, I'm assuming that 'game of telephone' part was directed at me. :)
The reason that I said that was because of the nature of the tales of the old testament partly. They were a tradition, passed down orally through the generations. Um, that is almost the definition of a game of telephone.

Even after the bible was written word, it was translated, and re-translated countless times and into countless versions throughout the years, and mistakes were made due to human fallibility that were simply recopied thousands of times, with thousands more small mistakes added to the mix.

This would be the written version of a game of telephone. That's what happened, and that was all I meant by it.

citizenzen said:
But I would also accept as evidence the presence of God in my heart and mind.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by this? I'm honestly interested, because that's a very 'religious' term, and one that I've never really understood. What would that mean to you is I guess what I'm stabbing at. :)
 
immortalitylost said:
What do you mean by this? I'm honestly interested, because that's a very 'religious' term, and one that I've never really understood. What would that mean to you is I guess what I'm stabbing at. :)
Click to expand...

It means that I'm open to proof other than physical.
 
immortalitylost said:
Um, I'm assuming that 'game of telephone' part was directed at me. :)
The reason that I said that was because of the nature of the tales of the old testament partly. They were a tradition, passed down orally through the generations. Um, that is almost the definition of a game of telephone.

Even after the bible was written word, it was translated, and re-translated countless times and into countless versions throughout the years, and mistakes were made due to human fallibility that were simply recopied thousands of times, with thousands more small mistakes added to the mix.

This would be the written version of a game of telephone. That's what happened, and that was all I meant by it.
Click to expand...

I guess it was directed at you… we really do not want to get into it on this thread, but you may want to check out the Dead Sea scrolls and the additional scrolls found at Qumran to clean up that argument. Archaeological finds have established scripture as the most faithfully preserved text in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top