romansh

• Agreed, no evidence either way........For some, there is no evidence for god, so there is no need to believe. For others, there is no evidence that establishes there is not or couldn't be (a) 'God' (very widely defined as evidenced in this website), so there is no need to not believe. Thormas

So if you agree there is no evidence either way especially of deistic type God's ... why do you believe? That God might be widely defined then perhaps we might parse the various definitions one at a time - as per the ignosticism thread.  What makes you a believer? What is the evidence that Love or whatever is god or God?

• My experience is that atheists simply don't believe because they (first) believe there is no such thing or being.  Thormas

Don't believe in your ill-defined nebulous god or the more revealed Norse, Roman, Greek and Abrahamic Gods? 

• Not sure what evidence or which more literal theistic notions of god that you have in mind.  Thormas

Abrahamic, Greek, Roman, Norse Gods

• God as a clockmaker who sets all in motion and then 'observes' from a distant place: no evidence either way. God as love: the same.   Thormas

Again why do you believe in something that you have no evidence? It is not faith in that believing in something with no or even despite the evidence is the definition. We might be agnostic on the subject in that we understand  we might never "know", but why is your default belief Love?

• I don't think there is any 'evidence' - for either the atheist or the religious position. However, not sure I agree that what one believes is not a choice: if it is the result of reading and experience then it seems in the doing of that, one 'sees' something and decides to take one road, the other road or sit on the fence for awhile. Thormas

I think the you will find most atheists take an agnostic stance on this ... in that as you say there is no evidence for a god so there is no logical need to believe in one. In my experience the majority of atheists I have come across do not believe there is no god; they simply don't hold a belief in god. Which seems a reasonable position to me. Now of course there is evidence against some of the more literal theistic (revealed) interpretations of god. 

Of course then there is the deistic type gods ... and almost by definition we have no evidence for them in either direction. What is the evidence for love being god? 

Sorry ... I meant works for Burl. 

But despite my intellectual cowardice moving back on topic ... free will is not simply about choice, because in some sense of the word we plainly make choices. It is about the nature of choice. Are our choices constrained by chemistry and physics of the brain, never mind the host of all the influences that shape our everyday choices?

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

 - by mockery and insult, or reason and evidence?

It has just been demonstrated by insult works.

The aspect of a prime mover invites further recursive regression. Whereas I wonder if some quantum event needs to be looked at this way? A prime move so to speak. We don't need to invoke universal intelligences and the like.  Occam's razor so to speak.

14 hours ago, Burl said:

Right.  Deists are theists.  Plus the panentheists, pantheists and polytheists.  All postulate a supreme being who brought everything into existence via free will.  

Woah! Gods have free will? Wow! Your knowledge of the transcendent impresses me. I am far from sure panentheist and pantheist gods brought the universe into existence.

What does your qualification of a "theistic god" as opposed to "god" mean? Also note Oxford's nod to theism being used to mean personal revealed gods. But I will grant theism can be used as a catch all.

deism noun, the belief in the existence of supreme being arising from reason rather than revelation.

theism noun, belief in the existence of gods or a god , especially a God supernaturally revealed to man and sustaining a personal relationship to his creatures.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Eighth Edition, 1990.

On ‎2017‎-‎12‎-‎19 at 5:10 AM, Burl said:

The major ramification of all actions (not everything) having a prior cause is that it points to the existence of a theistic god; a prime mover or first cause from which all others descend.

I am reminded by the debate between Krauss and others of the universe being created out of nothing. The others claim Krauss's nothing is a true nothing, and Krauss retorts no it is the real nothing and not an imaginary one. Simon Blackburn (a philosopher) asks "why is nothing our default state?" 

Similarly ... why does there have to be a first cause?  But I digress. Why a theistic god and not a deistic/panentheistic god and perhaps even a pantheistic god? Here I take theistic god to be a personal revealed god.

2 hours ago, Burl said:

Only rarely can any action be considered independent of cause, so I agree with you per your definition.

And what are these occasions that we are independent of cause ... rare as they may be?

And for you what be the ramifications of everything being a result of a prior cause?

I've posted this before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca7i-D4ddaw

At the 4:30 min mark there are several different definitions. The whole video is worth a watch.

For me:    Free will is the ability to act in someway that is somehow independent of cause (deterministic or indeterministic cause that is).

2 hours ago, Burl said:

You have free will to give to the corner panhandler or not.  You further have free will to intend either choice for any number of reasons.  You have free will to further imagine what the panhandler thinks of your choice, and what they imagine your intentions might be.

Here you by-pass two millennia or more of discussion and careful observation Burl. Simply asserting we use free will does not make our wills free per se. It is the nature of the choice that is under discussion. Are our choices independent of antecedents ... whether the antecedents be physical or psychological (should such a duality be real). 
Is all will free (independent of cause)?

Quote

The opposite of free will is instinct.

 

This I would argue is plainly false. If I inadvertently look for my the cereal box in the fridge is that instinctual? There are multitude of documented studies of subliminal causes for our behaviour. These are definitely not instinctual as such. 

Quote

 Would you argue that all thought is purely instinctive?

With the false duality of thought and instinct the question becomes moot. But while we are on thought, are our thoughts a result of cause? Again the cause can be physical or psychological.

21 hours ago, Burl said:

Free will is intention.  To forgive or not to forgive.  To love or not to love.  To accept or to challenge.

Your first sentence is a little tautological for my taste Burl. Having a will or an intention to do something does not make it free, does it? 

And from personal anecdotes ... I either love or not love ... I certainly did not have an intention to love. I don't intend to accept or not another view. I either do or don't.  Now I might decide (choose} to voice a my challenge or objection to a particular view, but that does not mean I do so freely? 

There are certain sexual practices that might throw some doubt on your spittle boundary. But I was thinking a little more broadly than just some (for me) narrow psychological aspect of our lives. Simply that we might immediately perceive our lips as a boundary does not mean some potato and lamb chop with gravy is not "me" now. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=83&v=Q9KebV1ebyM

This is short, 7 min, video giving a Strawsonesque argument against free will

Can someone else please help?

Thormas

What I am trying to replicate is "error correction" in communication. This is where the receiver repeats what it thinks it has heard and if incorrect the transmitter retransmits. 
"Swing and a miss" and "Done and already done" are far from helpful. Just because positions are clear to the transmitter does not mean all positions are clear in of themselves.

An open dialogue would be appreciated.

17 hours ago, thormas said:

You are missing everything yet again, go back and try reading the thread.

But you still could have a go at answering my question. Thanks

13 minutes ago, thormas said:

Participation is optional but accurate reading is required. Try it.....might help, but then again...............

Sorry Thormas  ... I am completely missing your point. You claim the subject of whether Paul was gay is intriguing.

I am asking why do we care?

On ‎2017‎-‎11‎-‎29 at 3:30 PM, PaulS said:

I find it of some interest but admit it can really only be speculation. 

However, imagine if it could be substantiated that Pay was gay - what that could mean to millions and millions of Christians who currently hold and quote Paul's writings as confirmation God considers homosexuality an abomination!  It might not be an issue for you but there are certainly millions of gay people persecuted because of how many interpret Paul's writings (and other biblical passages).  Open discussion and further learnings may eventually swing that tide (one can only hope).

Thank you Paul ... you understood my point and addressed it. 

Thormas apparently has an academic interest in the interpretations of texts of the sexuality of some guy 2000 years ago. You do recognize it has some relevance to today.

Now I understand this is a Progressive Christian forum and there is a tendency to look at life today through ancient texts; I get it. But then there are more modern texts and what the hell we can write our own texts on our own authority. Might result in some more original debate.

3 hours ago, thormas said:

Rom: a swing, a miss.

You assume too much (plus I never liked crossword puzzles, too busy) - Paul and I were not honing debate skills, we had genuine interest in the subject (evident in the sharing), had disagreements but continued - and I was motivated to do additional reading, thankful for the exchange and look forward to further discussions on a range of topics of interest to thinking people. 

Participation is optional and we don't all take part in each and every thread. So................ 

OK fair enough ... you have a particular interest whether Paul was a repressed homosexual ... what about any of the other characters of the time? And does it matter whether Paul had these sexual appetites?

22 hours ago, thormas said:

Oh, well but the good news is the books are up to date. So no worries.

Well I get it if it just an interest like crossword puzzles ... by all means hone one's skills for other debates.

But if we think it has some bearing on any of today's issues? In fact I would argue it would have little bearing for any thinking person of yesteryear, at least one who could think past the infection of any deleterious memes we may have contracted.

On ‎2017‎-‎11‎-‎26 at 2:42 PM, thormas said:

Well don't leave us hanging Rom, suggest some 'up to date' scholarly books on Paul, biblical scholarship and early Christian history that, having read, you think might help. I love recommendations. I seem to be current - ordering new books on Paul and early Christianity (by authors previously read) and referencing other books for our topics. Furthermore, the info on Irenaeus is out there and has been for a while, regardless of when the scholar wrote his/her book.

Already set on gay rights, so OK there - as for Paul it is simply an intriguing topic for some, although not earth shaking by any means - and it is the topic of the thread.

You missed my point  Thormas

Just following this thread ... I can't help thinking you guys need to get some more up to date books, and if you can't find any that meet the requirements, then work from first principles based on how we understand today how the universe ticks and apply that to gay rights (and pretty much everything else). I understand this might not answer the frightfully important conundrum of whether Paul way back then was gay or not, which in turn might inform our responses today to our modern biases.

This was a non binding referendum ... if I am correct?

Still a couple of hurdles to then.

Are there really heightened periods of consciousness? 

I can remember certain stuff ... some of my very clear memories may be even somewhat accurate ... no matter how heightened my consciousness was. 

There is evidence every time we take out a memory, play with it and put it back that it alters. 

I must admit I have a bias for Stephen Batchelor ... here's one of the reasons why.

The Agnostic Buddhist 

Thoughts?.