Determinism vs Freewill

[Ringtone]

If God were real then we should have the capability of freewill. But then if by chance we do have free will that's still not saying that a god is real. But what it does still say instead is that if there is no free-will then there can be no god. Nothing in favor of theism among those scenarios that I can see. And it does look like atheism can exist regardless of the which of the above outcomes is valid. But then can't co-exist with theism if God is real. Which leaves us something to work with I suppose. That is atheism's position, its validity you could say, is under challenge. Because for God to be real atheism must represent an invalid position in relation to theism.

God exists, and we have free will. These two facts of reality are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Gregory A]

To have to make decisions on everything we do from when we get up in the morning would make freewill a massive inconvenience. Better instead these things are dealt with in a predetermined way. For example we make what is an automatic decision when turning the knob to open the bedroom door to leave the room. Determinism is a servant in that sense and does decide most of the things we do in our lives and in a beneficial way. Determinism can be a detrimental thing too of course. The demon it has spawned in the form of atheism working together with the other heads of the Hydra that is the Left. These out to destroy all representations of patriarchy. This emerging monster very near unstoppable at this point reaching its ultimate goal with the elimination of the last male on earth. This event happening under the rule of bull-dyke (used descriptively) leadership at a not too distant time in the future (that the world will one day be ruled by lesbians is not an indictment of them as it is not the same as saying lesbians will one day rule the world).

We see lately apparent counteroffensives being made by the Right but unfortunately that's when these really are just the result of the thrashings of conservatism whilst in its death throes. So in that sense the obliteration of atheism here at this forum is nothing more than as p*ss in the ocean as far as any impact goes it should be understood. The only meaningful victory for freewill will be in averting this coming gendercide. Itself otherwise a completely natural process, Nature taking care of those obsolete by using the process of elimination.

 

[Indeependent]

If God were real then we should have the capability of freewill. But then if by chance we do have free will that's still not saying that a god is real. But what it does still say instead is that if there is no free-will then there can be no god. Nothing in favor of theism among those scenarios that I can see. And it does look like atheism can exist regardless of the which of the above outcomes is valid. But then can't co-exist with theism if God is real. Which leaves us something to work with I suppose. That is atheism's position, its validity you could say, is under challenge. Because for God to be real atheism must represent an invalid position in relation to theism.

So trees are proof there is no God.
Thanks!

 

[Gregory A]

God exists, and we have free will. These two facts of reality are not mutually exclusive.

The object of this thread is to show that logic, an intangible, can grant us a degree of free will in relation to what otherwise is a mostly predetermined existence in which we live our lives.

And the point had been made: "But then if by chance we do have free will that's still not saying that a god is real".

 

[Gregory A]

So trees are proof there is no God.
Thanks!

Atheism is evidence of there being a devil at least.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Atheists lack belief in devils as well. Learned behaviors, such as folding t-shirts a new way that one discovers through trial and error, then likes so repeats until it becomes second nature.

 

[Ringtone]

The object of this thread is to show that logic, an intangible, can grant us a degree of free will in relation to what otherwise is a mostly predetermined existence in which we live our lives.

And the point had been made: "But then if by chance we do have free will that's still not saying that a god is real".

No worries.

The fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of metaphysics prove God's existence. The essence of the universally objective standard of morality and the necessity of moral free will is subsequently self-evident.

Problem solved.

What else can I help you with?

 

[Gregory A]

Atheists lack belief in devils as well. Learned behaviors, such as folding t-shirts a new way that one discovers through trial and error, then likes so repeats until it becomes second nature.

The point I was making is this: If we are prepared to enter into a debate, regardless of the topic, then by our entry into the conversation we bestow a degree of credibility on the subject matter.

That is if I choose to debate the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I need to be prepared to accept the attributes of such an unlikely creature as being legitimate parts of my opponent's argument. Because it just may be the case that I lose the debate.

So your lack of belief in devils beforehand becomes of little relevance when choosing to argue against the existence of a god.

Logic would decide that if you do not accept there is a possibility of there being a god, then you should not be in a position to debate its existence in the first place. Your assertion (lack of belief) leaves you without the choice of being able to accept yourself losing the debate. Don't play the game if you are not also prepared to lose is the rule then.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I forgot to finish my point above. Point being we can discover new preferences through trial and error having potentially nothing whatsoever to do with religion, morals, predetermination, or randomness. We can often freely select (pick favorites) from a necessarily limited set of possibilities, then expand the range or complexity ourselves if we want. Say, you choose a color for your bedroom walls from a fan of numbered latex paint colors at a hardware store. Then the wife looks at it and wants it just a tad darker -- between the numbers. The assistant says we can do that. Brings a book out showing the hue gradient between the two numbers. Wife turns around and chucks a pinch of salt over her shoulder. Turns around. Points at the first grain she notices that has landed on the scale and says, "That one." The exact outcome obviously not predetermined. Not entirely free will either.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The point I was making is this: If we are prepared to enter into a debate, regardless of the topic, then by our entry into the conversation we bestow a degree of credibility on the subject matter.

That is if I choose to debate the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I need to be prepared to accept the attributes of such an unlikely creature as being legitimate parts of my opponent's argument. Because it just may be the case that I lose the debate.

So your lack of belief in devils beforehand becomes of little relevance when choosing to argue against the existence of a god.

Logic would decide that if you do not accept there is a possibility of there being a god, then you should not be in a position to debate its existence in the first place. Your assertion (lack of belief) leaves you without the choice of being able to accept yourself losing the debate. Don't play the game if you are not also prepared to lose is the rule then.

This is real life we're talking about, not some game, and the whole point of saying "Flying Spaghetti Monster" instead of "God" is that the supposed "attributes" are clearly arbitrary, thus an absurd thing for anyone to dwell upon.

First you posit existing gods as foils to atheism, then posit devils for backup. Being supernatural entities, atheists clearly lack belief in both equally by definition. If there is no debate left then that's entirely your fault. Why? Because you've deliberately mischaracterized atheism. Atheists in fact (generally) do "accept there is a possibility of there being a god." All we lack is belief due to the ongoing, profound lack of compelling evidence. You know this, but you apparently can't deal with it "logically." Not my problem to sort out. Yours.

 

[Gregory A]

This is real life we're talking about, not some game, and the whole point of saying "Flying Spaghetti Monster" instead of "God" is that the supposed "attributes" are clearly arbitrary, thus an absurd thing for anyone to dwell upon.

If someone believes in the FSM then there is nothing arbitrary about its attributes. It's a monstrous creature that can fly and is made of spaghetti. You need to accept this possibility or not debate 'its' existence with that person.

First you posit existing gods as foils to atheism, then posit devils for backup. Being supernatural entities, atheists clearly lack belief in both equally by definition. If there is no debate left then that's entirely your fault. Why? Because you've deliberately mischaracterized atheism. Atheists in fact (generally) do "accept there is a possibility of there being a god." All we lack is belief due to the ongoing, profound lack of compelling evidence. You know this, but you apparently can't deal with it "logically." Not my problem to sort out. Yours.

What 'you' don't believe in is irrelevant because arrogance does not carry any weight in a debate.

You get me wrong because I'm not the ideal target you had pictured in your mind when preparing to hunt theists. I'm not religious for example and I don't believe in devils or for that matter deities.

And I'm perfectly entitled to bring gods or devils into this as I'm not here debating atheism. Not that it can be done as atheists absurdly have no set of beliefs to debate.

You understand nothing in my posts I understand most of what you say in yours. This telling me that you are here as a result of determinism's decision that those who linger when wrong need to be arrogant types that don't bother reading what others post. I'm only about 20% arrogant on that scale by the way.

And there is no high ground from where you can demand answers from theists. Even scientists can't do that because they accept theism as being belief-based.

 

[Gregory A]

I forgot to finish my point above. Point being we can discover new preferences through trial and error having potentially nothing whatsoever to do with religion, morals, predetermination, or randomness. We can often freely select (pick favorites) from a necessarily limited set of possibilities, then expand the range or complexity ourselves if we want. Say, you choose a color for your bedroom walls from a fan of numbered latex paint colors at a hardware store. Then the wife looks at it and wants it just a tad darker -- between the numbers. The assistant says we can do that. Brings a book out showing the hue gradient between the two numbers. Wife turns around and chucks a pinch of salt over her shoulder. Turns around. Points at the first grain she notices that has landed on the scale and says, "That one." The exact outcome obviously not predetermined. Not entirely free will either.

A deterministic world would dictate that some people do one thing others do another. It would dictate that some of us would ponder free will while many others work on an assembly line all of their lives unconcerned by the same question. It's logic that might give us a break. It's not a Newtonian clockwork universe we live in and then there are quantum effects that might allow starting points for free decisions to flow from. I don't accept that there should be a rule that says there can be no free will. And we are near that time that it is needed as well. A gendercide process already underway determined by events going back thousands of years. This near-inevitable outcome a test of our abilities to act logically and prevent such a catastrophic ending for all males.

 

[Gregory A]

In the natural world the elimination of a species means nothing, extinctions happening many times over, and recently these due mostly to the impact we ourselves have on the environment. One creature doesn't care about another and isn't even aware of that eventuation anyhow. Likewise the gendercide of all male human beings a process underway for decades now will continue on unnoticed that's even if we become aware of it. And then we'll just accept it as another warning from scientists that can be ignored. Global Warming and holes in the Ozone layer are warnings that have been around for decades now for example.

With Nature set to eliminate all males within one hundred years something the evidence more than suggests is predetermined we now have a chance using our free will if it exists to take/make a second option that would allow a forever together outcome. We have by my estimation no more than 10 months left to make a decision on this, one that then only gives a small chance of averting this disaster anyhow .

Determinism wins a small victory for atheists or causes a massive loss to mankind. It really is your decision.

 

[Gregory A]

In the natural world the elimination of a species means nothing, extinctions happening many times over, and recently these due mostly to the impact we ourselves have on the environment. One creature doesn't care about another and isn't even aware of that eventuation anyhow. Likewise the gendercide of all male human beings a process underway for decades now will continue on unnoticed that's even if we become aware of it. And then we'll just accept it as another warning from scientists that can be ignored. Global Warming and holes in the Ozone layer are warnings that have been around for decades now for example.

With Nature set to eliminate all males within one hundred years something the evidence more than suggests is predetermined we now have a chance using our free will if it exists to take/make a second option that would allow a forever together outcome. We have by my estimation no more than 10 months left to make a decision on this, one that then only gives a small chance of averting this disaster anyhow .

Determinism wins a small victory for atheists or causes a massive loss to mankind. It really is your decision.

A hammer and a nail are two completely different but mutually dependent things neither haveing a purpose without each other. A male and a female are not all too different physically and are no longer dependent on each other anymore.

The two sides of a coin can't be split, but the human genders can be separated. A most unnatural occurence but one that's happening anyhow. If soceity's patriarchs fail to meet their obligation to defend society then the male is doomed. The resultant 'Dyke Age' set to follow representing the terminal period of history.