romansh

Last summer did China, Romania, Netherlands, Latvia and England *with a walk in Wales Halfway through I wished I was on a plane back to Canada … got second wind though after that.

So what? What is your understanding of free will?

Firstly I am not demanding evidence … just hoping in vain. I believe the Earth is a spheroid floating around the Sun which in turn is in a spiral arm of the Milky Way. I can point to evidence for this belief. Belief and evidence for a belief are not mutually exclusive. My supposed belief that the universe exists beyond my perception is closer to faith than belief. As I can see no logical way of testing my supposed belief.

This does not mean that biblical insight is not nonsense. But of course that is your belief. Thomas Hobbes nailed it (back in 1651 I think) when he said: Funnily enough I came to this conclusion without being aware that Hobbes was of this mind. Just reading posts like yours. My issue is not with smiley face. Well if you were comfortable in your faith (belief without evidence) it would not bother you. You would be able to counter logically Have not been banned here. Plainly you did not understand what was said to you or you have forgotten. I am being 'nice'. This I agree with you. It would seem so, based on your posts. This is your opinion. I am waiting for you to demonstrate this.

Plainly shows you don't understand the free will discussion. It not whether I can chose or not its about the nature of the choice. And no its not funny Yes … let go of your belief in free will and stop resorting to nonsensical made-up beliefs like IS. What is your evidence for IS being somehow separate from the universe? The indeterminant effect becomes a cause. You should have put a smiley face after this. What is your evidence for intentionality? Is your intentionality free? Hence logically no thus, at least not yet Nonsense. (fact) This I don't understand Yes or at least perhaps. But one of them is based on reality and some evidence can be brought to bear. Thormas … you've got nothing but some 'belief' not supported by evidence!

Assumptions The universe beyond my perception actually exists … this is closer to faith than belief as I can't see a way to test this. All actions are a result of the following … cause and effect type processes (determinism), random processes (indeterminism) or some combination. (while we can't test "all" we can test a sufficiently large population of these actions to make it a reasonable assumption). If I am not responsible for the fundamental state of the universe, I am not an independent cause I do not control the myriad of processes that are necessary to form my actions (eg I do not control the diffusion rates of chemicals, electron flow, potentials across synapses, any quantum phenomena that might be occurring, I do not control the strengthening of certain neural pathways, though I am aware repetition might do that, but I have no control over the desire to repeat). This not to say my actions do not affect the underlying process. I do not control the underlying processes of thought So any sense of freedom I might possess is an illusion. The processes that cause people to divvy up actions into either good or evil would be appear to be driven by the environment and our individual body chemistries. eg the reaction to female genital mutilation is driven by environmental circumstance. Although people's minds might be swayed one way or another, in the moment they cannot do otherwise in that their actions are driven by the underlying processes. So in this sense, actions that are considered a sin (some of us cannot help but think they exist), they are formed in the conjunction of the unfolding universe. The illusions that we see as good and evil, are part of an integral whole.

Well I have defined faith and belief here. Perhaps thormas you may want to clarify what you mean by believe and belief.

Fundamentally you have nothing … no evidence, no logic/reason. Just an assertion. Not even a belief … just faith

Yes I understand your reply was an attempt to be humorous. But do you agree with Burl is a separate point. I suspect we should examine these assumptions eventually. I suspect there are a few more hidden here. But in the meantime could you build up your case for the existence of sin from these assumptions please?

Still did not answer a question. What are your underlying assumptions for the existence of sin? Other than one's perception of it?

Didn't answer my serious question.

Do you agree with Burl?

Well I thought his point (a fallacy) was not to rely too much on the opinion of a adjunct professional in only a related field. Do you agree? What so you think my point was?

You missed my point Burl I will note not rely on you when it comes to that aspect of the human condition.

That is like me saying I would rely on a theologian.

And it was clear I was using it as cause. Reason could also be logic. As Paul suggested obfuscation. Yes intentionality and decision are part of that tangle. I don't recall expressing a preference, but I would prefer a cheese cake lover … my preference is irrelevant. We are talking about sin (in the context of good). Show me your working for its existence … without preferences. Then don't mention relationships. Do you think I don't understand the underlying structure of this metaphor? Can you not see it from the Nazis' point of view. I am not asking you to agree with it. Just understand their point of view. You are just parroting here The difference is you do not wish to enter the underlying assumptions in your argument. And frankly mine is more of a lack of belief … I don't believe in sin … it is a lack of belief. I have not seen a coherent argument from you thormas. Just in a few lines summarize your argument for the existence of sin.

I have never been church religious, FireDragon … so it is not something I miss. It never made sense to me. I lost belief in any sort of god almost forty years ago. Don't miss that belief either. While I see many parallels of my path to that of Buddhism, Buddhism is not my path … though I would recommend Stephen Batchelor's flavour, if that is what you are after I volunteer. Married for coming up to 44 years. Trying to get a grip on the vagaries of reality. Anyway if you are interested here is my more lengthy take on religion

That is a lot of resolutions Many decades ago I gave New Year Resolutions for Lent and I seem to have been successful "Good" luck with them.

The answer is yes, as I suspect you well know. What was the reason the house burnt down? Oh there was an electrical fault in a junction box. Of course reason has the alternative meaning of purpose. Purpose is a tangle of perceptions that we should be careful of. Here you are confounding preference with sin (evil) … This whole section highlights that you don't get what I am trying to say to you. It is not about whether nuns lying to Nazis is a good or a bad thing. This is just a perception one way or the other. Building relationships is a useful thing to do. You seem to see it as "good". Fair enough. But you are not bringing a logical argument to the table. Simply asserting something is not an argument. This is an example of the humour that Paul was talking about.

My point, if indeed I have one, is that you were still defending your "useful sex". I would argue it could not have been any other way. I think Joseph would say be accepting of the phenomena, I would suggest understanding rather than defending it as good.

Hi Joseph … here are Taylor's tips and my take on them: This I think is the whole point of your position and in large part mine. Don't assume the colour red and sin exist. I am not sure I can be respectful of "other's opinions" when I think them fatuitous. But I by and large do try to treat the other person respectfully in this case. Not because they might be right but more because they can't help themselves. This is the basis of agnosticism. Science is an agnostic process, though not all scientists are necessarily agnostic as to their findings. The problem here is seeing the mote in the other's eye is a lot easier to see. Twelve years ago when I lost my belief in free will, was an interesting time. It changed the way I saw the world. Has the distortion increased. The world seems to make more sense though the lens of no free will. This I find is difficult. It is easier to observe in others. When my conception of free will (and the casual nature of the universe) was challenged on an agnostic forum (no longer), I realized immediately I had no logical ground to defend my position only my perception. After three weeks of hopelessly defending my position, I started reading on the subject. The pro free will defenses no longer made any sense to me. At the time I still felt I had the perception of free will; but over time the perception of free will has faded. Well I have done this, philosophers to me seem to miss the simple point and play a rhetorical game (on both sides, three actually) of the debate. Scientists seem to me closer to nub of the matter. The old adage of being open minded but not so your brains fall out comes to mind here. Well I would have said there were not many examples of people claiming not to be open minded, but with Mitch McConnell working with the President's defense … who knows. Open mindedness is not something we can turn on with switch … it does take some training.

This is a reasonably accurate summary of feelings I experience when dealing with thormas's posts. I wonder if this is a coincidence or maybe there is a cause or a reason behind this? Have a good time between now and the New Year.

Not quite my point Paul … 1) Thormas's expression of his reality is a perception as is yours. 2) Depending on the circumstances this supposedly sinful sex might be seen as harmful or beneficial depending on the circumstances. It's all perceptions and desires. 3) If we have no free will, good and evil/sin are not even coherent concepts. While I agree with you, I could see someone fretting anxiously over eating a forbidden cheese cake and someone else sleeping soundly after killing dozens of people. But you have a right to what I consider your aberrant perceptions. Philosophically? I think not. Having said that the chair being red or not won't affect brain functions too much, if I smashed the chair over someone's head for no (apparent) reason then if I were you I'd stay away from me. Would a brain tumour have been a "good" reason? If so what is "good" about the brain tumour? I am not advocating doing things that are often thought of as evil (or even at times good), What I am advocating is taking a deep look (or getting an understanding) of our actions and not dividing them into good and evil. That for me is one of the most disappointing things about the Abraham religions. They seem not to understand their own teachings.

Merry Christmas to one and all ….

The concept of sin exists … it might come in different guises from enjoying a delightful cheese cake to, lets say, genocide in the millions. Not everyone may exhibit this concept, but most seem to, in some shape or form. We might put it on some relative scale or in terms of some absolute. That as far as I am concerned is a part of reality; no ifs and buts. Similarly the concept of red exists, some colour blind people might not have this concept, but the concept exists. We are conflating the concept of sin which clearly exists with actual sin. Colour in a sense does not exist. My perception of the kitchen chair is that it is red. That does not mean it is red, not even if seven billion trichromats describe it as red. Similarly with sin. If we want a more accurate description of 'reality' … there is only one reality, but many descriptions, we need to some heavy lifting. Our perceptions are not reality, but they are reflections of that reality; and those reflections may contain aberrations.