Evidence for God from Science

Why are you not wrong about the fundamental nature of things? ( the universe as you put it)


Because you can deduce and rationalize the universe around you and in doing so, you that the evidence presented to you and you CHOOSE to believe the conclusion of your rationalizations.

To say you have no choice in what you believe amounts to not understanding how you arrive at what you believe, which is a process of choice, a process of elimination of variables and what is incorrect ( based on available data and your ability to rationalize it).

To be honest, I am surprised that so many people have so many issues with choice.
It seems that people want to BELIEVE that they have no choice in what they believe, sort of a cop-out, a "born this way" argument that is realiy refuted with common sense but that people keep coming back to it.

It is as if they don't see the slipper slope that will happen when people believe they have no choice in what they believe,

I just read that, "believe they have no choice in what they believe".
A self-refuting argument right in front of me, LOL !

I guess the conversation will be:
You don't believe that you choose what you believe?
Answer: No, I have no choice in what I believe.
Reply: You really believe that?
Answer: Yes.

LOL !

No, as I said people often choose to believe things they're not 100% sure of - that's where the choice comes in in my opinion. How convinced they have to be varies from person to person.

When it comes to faith in God/Jesus, Scripture makes it clear that NO one could come to faith without God first drawing them - first through how He has made everyone to have a sense of the Spiritual, to sense their incompleteness, and through the amazing aspects of the world and universe we see. And, obviously, through the Gospel. So God woos us, and that wooing is effective only upon those open and so willing to allow themselves to be impacted and thus drawn to God. And it takes different things and levels of them for different people - we're all different as to whatever it takes to draw us, to open our eyes. But there is never such a thing as a knowable, fully provable understanding that makes us desire Christ - as, at some point, there must be a leap of faith. And I believe that it is when we WANT to believe (about Jesus) what we can't yet fully know, that God bridges that gap in moving us to faith. If we'll respond as much as personally possible, in our desire and willingness to find God, I'm convinced He does all of the rest. After all, it is "He that began a good work in you" that completes it.

So, coming to faith is not just US figuring out all these complicated, seemingly unknowable things, with just the right amount of certainty and proofs, that "seals the Deal!" It's that, God's mercy and love is effective upon those who won't permanently resist it. At some point, if a person is truly open, desirous of, or seeking God, He'll do all that is necessary to bring that person to salvation. And so, THIS is how I believe the Believer comes to Jesus - God draws the WILLING so close to the Truth that they begin to desire it and express that desire, yet without full certainty - and this is how they embrace the Gospel message. And then God closes the deal and bridges the gaps we could not otherwise!

Philip wrote:...And then God closes the deal and bridges the gaps we cannot!

Yes. That was my practicality and literal-mindedness coming out I guess. I know there's more to things than that!

PaulSacramento wrote:

Yes, I don't think that persons are free to choose. They are free to deliberate and from an internal perspective choose what they want but if the act is rationally they will always come to the same decision, same choice. So they are not moral responsible MR in a basic sense, i.e. if you deem the responsibility by looking backwards.

However, we can hold persons responsible for their act, using a consequential perspective. They are not MR because who they are, what motives they have etc. They are only MR because we need rules how to behave in a society. By adapting this idea we can skip or at least mitigate the feelings of retribution and instead try to rehabilitate the person. This was the official purpose of the criminal system in Sweden about 1940 - 1970. Then the idea of proportionality was introduced, the idea that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. But that idea was part of the criminal system also earlier even if not officially declared. And of course the policy of rehabilitation remains even if it isn't particularly successful. In Norway they are doing much better. (See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472929/)

Nils

I think you need to re-read what you wrote here and if you still agree, give me 1 reason why out justice system should make a distinction of mental capacity or even age, or even circumstance.

There are many reasons but the simplest is fairness. If someone push you I assume that you react differently if it is a beloved person that is too eager to come close, if it an angry neighbour that does it deliberately, or it is a youngster that is careless. You make a distinction of mental capacity or even age, or even circumstance. The justice system should do the same.

And also please explain you basis for "moral responsibility" and "rules" in society.

My basis for moral responsibility is the welfare benefits of the society. It is well known what rules we need to be civilised and live good lives.

Nils

Nils, I have to ask, to your points, WHY ?

PaulSacramento wrote:Nils, I have to ask, to your points, WHY ?

Paul, to me the answer is obvious but I understand that it is perhaps difficult for a theist to think of a world without any God. If there is no God to trust, to listen to, to get advises and rules from the only way is to trust yourself and your rationality. I want to live in a society that is preferable to me, to my children and grandchildren and others I love or value. From that it is straightforward to describe the morality I want. You don't have to believe in a God to appreciate that nobody is allowed to kill you, or take your belongings or rape your wife or daughter and that there is law and police to enforce these rules.

This basic principle can be elaborated and extended to a welfare state and democracy. But the base is my own understanding of what's best.

Nils

Which strawman will be tackled first...

Kurieuo wrote:Which strawman will be tackled first...

Please, be more specific.

And note that the subject of my post isn't to discuss Christianity but to describe my position. If you find my short mentioning of a possible relation to a religion not being a correct description of Christianity, well, then you may comment on that, but it is'nt my topic. I would rather prefer that you comment what I am talking about.

Nils

Nils wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Nils, I have to ask, to your points, WHY ?

Paul, to me the answer is obvious but I understand that it is perhaps difficult for a theist to think of a world without any God. If there is no God to trust, to listen to, to get advises and rules from the only way is to trust yourself and your rationality. I want to live in a society that is preferable to me, to my children and grandchildren and others I love or value. From that it is straightforward to describe the morality I want. You don't have to believe in a God to appreciate that nobody is allowed to kill you, or take your belongings or rape your wife or daughter and that there is law and police to enforce these rules.

This basic principle can be elaborated and extended to a welfare state and democracy. But the base is my own understanding of what's best.

Nils

So you answer to WHY is that you must trust yourself and your rationality?
But you don't have any choice in what you rationalize/believe, right? so how can you trust it ??

You don't have to believe in a God to appreciate that nobody is allowed to kill you, or take your belongings or rape your wife or daughter and that there is law and police to enforce these rules.

Of course not, you don't have to believe in God to be a moral person.
That said, the laws we have and the morality we have inherited in modern civilization IS base don the notion that there IS an objective morality and that people DO have a choice in what they do and believe.
If you say that is not the case then what is YOUR basis for a moral right and wrong AND why should I or anyone else, follow it ??

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nils wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Nils, I have to ask, to your points, WHY ?

Paul, to me the answer is obvious but I understand that it is perhaps difficult for a theist to think of a world without any God. If there is no God to trust, to listen to, to get advises and rules from the only way is to trust yourself and your rationality. I want to live in a society that is preferable to me, to my children and grandchildren and others I love or value. From that it is straightforward to describe the morality I want. You don't have to believe in a God to appreciate that nobody is allowed to kill you, or take your belongings or rape your wife or daughter and that there is law and police to enforce these rules.

This basic principle can be elaborated and extended to a welfare state and democracy. But the base is my own understanding of what's best.

Nils

So you answer to WHY is that you must trust yourself and your rationality?

Yes

But you don't have any choice in what you rationalize/believe, right? so how can you trust it ??

In some way you are right, I have no choice about what I believe.

The simple answer is that there is no other thing that I can trust, so anyway I have to trust myself.

There is also are more complex answer. What you say " But you don't have any choice in what you rationalize/believe," is only partly right. If the world is deterministic you can in principle determine what I will do in the future and I have no choice. But that should not be mixed up with fatalism, the thinking that there is no idea to act because the outcome will be the same anyway. So don't try to deliberate, it's meaningless. But fatalism is false. It is useful to deliberate. I (in the first person view) has the possibility to chose between alternatives and act accordingly. The result of the deliberation may have been determined beforehand but if I didn't deliberate, that also would have been determined beforehand. Therefore the knowledge that my actions may have been determined beforehand is of no use. I can and should ignore it. A parallel is computers. Even if the outcome of running a program is determined beforehand we run the program anyway because we want to know the result. The same with me, I deliberate because I want to know what I can find out. And when I find the result consistent, I'll trust it.

Nils

PaulSacramento wrote:

You don't have to believe in a God to appreciate that nobody is allowed to kill you, or take your belongings or rape your wife or daughter and that there is law and police to enforce these rules.

Of course not, you don't have to believe in God to be a moral person.
That said, the laws we have and the morality we have inherited in modern civilization IS base don the notion that there IS an objective morality and that people DO have a choice in what they do and believe.

You may be right but that does not prove that there is an objective morality or that people have a choice. What I say is that it is perfectly possible to have another base.

If you say that is not the case then what is YOUR basis for a moral right and wrong AND why should I or anyone else, follow it ??

To answer that I have to elaborate my idea. If I find a morality I like and there are others that like the same morality we together can build a society. That is what's done in for instance modern western societies. If you like to kill and torture for fun, you will have difficulties to find others with the same view. However, if you find some others, a society built on your common values will probably be ephemeral.

Nils

Nils wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Which strawman will be tackled first...

Please, be more specific.

And note that the subject of my post isn't to discuss Christianity but to describe my position. If you find my short mentioning of a possible relation to a religion not being a correct description of Christianity, well, then you may comment on that, but it is'nt my topic. I would rather prefer that you comment what I am talking about.

Sorry, you lost me.

Nils,
Sorry to say but your whole view is grossly subjective AND not very consistent.

You say that you have no choice in what you believe BUT say that you live as though you do - so delusion.
You say this, hopefully, because you see the slope you are on if there is no moral objectivity and that people do NOT have free will to make choice because, without those things, there is no logical conclusion of responsibility and accountability, at all.

You live your life as if you know that this is a moral absolute( right and wrong DO exist and something you simply do NOT do) and yet you have no basis to do that.
You know that laws exist and they are fair ( it is right to hold people accountable for their actions) YET you have no grounds to truly accept that ( though you do CHOOSE to believe it).

See the issues?

PaulSacramento wrote:Nils,
Sorry to say but your whole view is grossly subjective AND not very consistent.

Paul, I understand that you think my view is inconsistent but that, I think, does depends on that you don't understand it. My view is a bit complex, rather two views.

First, about free will. I find it metaphysically impossible that we have a free will so that we can truly deserve punishment. We are the result of heredity and environment and perhaps some randomness. It is sheer luck if you are born into a nice family, being intelligent and socially competent. As well as it is not up to you that you look handsome it is not up to you that you are clever. It is sheer unluck if you happened to murder a person when others that had been born with better self-control avoided murdering in the same situation.

Therefore no one deserves to be punished, never.

On the other hand. That I don't have free will does not hinder me from finding out what is my will. I can deliberate to find out what is best to me, or just find out what I desire. In my ordinary life I usually don't think about the metaphysics so I often think that I have a free will even if I know I don't. That's not a delusion, that's just a practical way of thinking. But that requires that you can have two thoughts at the same time (a bit more complicated than only having one idea).

On punishment again. I say that no one deserves punishment but I also know that in a well-functioning society there has to be rules. During the evolution some of these rules have been implanted in those animals that lives in flocks e.g. wolves and chimpanzees. In our human societies those inherited rules are not sufficient and we have to enforce other rules as well. We also have to codify them in laws and punish those that break the laws. But the criminals should not be punished because they deserve punishment (looking backwards) but they have to be punished because we have to deter them and others to break the law in the future. There are also other aspects as isolating dangerous persons, educating them or rehabilitating them. These are forward looking reason to punish. If there were no such reasons we should not punish.

So your comments:

You say that you have no choice in what you believe BUT say that you live as though you do - so delusion.

Se above on delusion.

You say this, hopefully, because you see the slope you are on if there is no moral objectivity and that people do NOT have free will to make choice because, without those things, there is no logical conclusion of responsibility and accountability, at all.

I am definitely not on any slope. I reject your reasons for responsibility and argue for my reasons. To me my reasons are better.

You live your life as if you know that this is a moral absolute( right and wrong DO exist and something you simply do NOT do) and yet you have no basis to do that.

No, I don't live as if I know that there is an absolute moral. Your absolute moral partly overlaps my moral, that's why it seems that I know your moral. Of course it is not a coincidence that they overlap. The base of the moral is that it is useful to a society. In your case it has been codified by religion and given the status of absoluteness, a status that you accept. In my case I understand the origin of it and its subjectivity.

You know that laws exist and they are fair ( it is right to hold people accountable for their actions) YET you have no grounds to truly accept that ( though you do CHOOSE to believe it).

I don't agree that they are fair generally, there are different aspects. Because nobody deserves punishment it is outrageous unfair. However, to maintain our society we need a juridical system and punishment. If that is "fair" can be discussed. The philosopher Saul Smilansky argues that punishment should be changed to "funishment" trying to make the punishment as agreeable as possible to those that had the bad luck to be punished, punished to the benefit of all others.

See the issues?

Yes, but ...

Nils