Your [public] conception of God is not consistent (omnipresent, but not omnipotent). You therefore have a [public] responsibility to address this problem. Nothing said here has anything to do with private messages, so please don't hide under that umbrella again.

jamest wrote:Your [public] conception of God is not consistent (omnipresent, but not omnipotent). You therefore have a [public] responsibility to address this problem. Nothing said here has anything to do with private messages, so please don't hide under that umbrella again.

I have already addressed this by telling you that this universe of interactions and combinations is illusory. Therefore God has no Real presence here.

Destroyer wrote:

jamest wrote:Your [public] conception of God is not consistent (omnipresent, but not omnipotent). You therefore have a [public] responsibility to address this problem. Nothing said here has anything to do with private messages, so please don't hide under that umbrella again.

I have already addressed this by telling you that this universe of interactions and combinations is illusory. Therefore God has no Real presence here.

Why would you think that telling me that "this universe of interactions and combinations is illusory" suffices to explain why God is omnipresent but not omnipotent? Seriously, it does not suffice to just say that. Please explain your public comments publicly.

jamest wrote: Please explain your public comments publicly.

But on some appropriate thread please

romansh wrote:

jamest wrote: Please explain your public comments publicly.

But on some appropriate thread please

The issue of free will stretches from God to man, Sir, so any comments about God's attributes are worth discussing for those willing to entertain the full parameters of the issue. I therefore see no reason to shift the convo to another thread.

Btw, what's this particular mode of thought Scott was talking about earlier today? Any comment? I know I made light of it, but there's a serious side to me so go ahead...

James you will have to explain to me how further discussion of Destroyer's god not giving free will is relevant to this thread?

Now if you want to argue for a god given free will then I would argue go for it.

You will have to ask Scott.

Ask me what?

romansh wrote:James you will have to explain to me how further discussion of Destroyer's god not giving free will is relevant to this thread?

The issue of God pertaining to free will IS relevant to reason/philosophy, not [just] Destroyer. This is the philosophy forum, not the materialist/physicalist forum. Your personal metaphysical preferences are of no significance here, squire.

Now if you want to argue for a god given free will then I would argue go for it.

I often do, and partly have [here]. All you've done is moan that I have done so.

You will have to ask Scott.

Yet, Scott has already referred me to you to explain said particular 'mode' of argument. Which was not unreasonable, given that the claim was that you were the creator of that mode. He seems to be a fan, regardless, but was unable to address my concerns. So, there's a court with you in it and a ball has just entered.

scott1328 wrote:Ask me what?

Are you Donald Trump in disguise?

jamest wrote:

romansh wrote:James you will have to explain to me how further discussion of Destroyer's god not giving free will is relevant to this thread?

The issue of God pertaining to free will IS relevant to reason/philosophy, not [just] Destroyer. This is the philosophy forum, not the materialist/physicalist forum. Your personal metaphysical preferences are of no significance here, squire.

Now if you want to argue for a god given free will then I would argue go for it.

I often do, and partly have [here]. All you've done is moan that I have done so.

You will have to ask Scott.

Yet, Scott has already referred me to you to explain said particular 'mode' of argument. Which was not unreasonable, given that the claim was that you were the creator of that mode. He seems to be a fan, regardless, but was unable to address my concerns. So, there's a court with you in it and a ball has just entered.

You have not explained how Destroyer's god is relevant to free will. Destroyer's god did not give us free will apparently. So if we have it we must have by some other means ... magic, redefinition, some other god capable free will? So please explain.

Regarding moaning ... my memory fails me ... if you could provide me with a link?

Scott is making the claim ... I will render unto Scott as it bears Scott's mark. It's irrelevant anyway.

Daniel Dennett's review of Sam Harris' book/essay, 'Free Will':

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/ref ... -free-will


Sam Harris' response:

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the ... tes-lament


I find myself agreeing almost if not completely with Sam Harris.

So fuckin' what?

Romansh' mode of argument is this: pick a definition of something that is incoherent/impossible/self-contradictory. claim that definition is the only possible one and ignore more nuanced definitions, and use the picked definition to "prove" something doesn't exist and proclaim victory.

For example: to Romansh, free will can only mean a choice that is made by an agent that is in no way contingent upon external causes. Everything we know about the universe says that there are no uncalled effects, therefore all choices are contingent, there no choices are truly free.

But Romansh's definition is not the only definition or even a very useful definition. I have offered a definition, so has zoon and others, definitions that are compatible with how we observe the universe to behave. Yet these other definitions are rejected out of hand as "defineing free will into existence". And he does so even as his own definition defines "free will out of existence".

(One thing Romansh should remember: abstract concepts such as free will can only ever defined into or out of existence.)

archibald wrote:Daniel Dennett's review of Sam Harris' book/essay, 'Free Will':
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/ref ... -free-will
Sam Harris' response:
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the ... tes-lament
I find myself agreeing almost if not completely with Sam Harris.

I read both Free Will and Freedom Evolves. I found Sam's arguments on point ... while I agreed with 99% of what Dan wrote he did not address the central issue if everything is determined by the aggregate of quantum phenomena then how could we have done otherwise. The fact there may be free wills worth wanting out there ... Kant and James (no not ours) have seen through that.

Dennett did not do himself any favours with that review. Sam just about stayed this side of civilized with his response.

romansh wrote:[q
You have not explained how Destroyer's god is relevant to free will.

That's correct, since I never claimed that it did. Though I have just explained to you why 'God' is relevant to free will, regardless. In other words, Destroyer is destroying our conversation, so it seems.

Destroyer's god did not give us free will apparently. So if we have it we must have by some other means ... magic, redefinition, some other god capable free will? So please explain.

For the record (please remember, as if it weren't obvious), I don't give two brown sausages about Destroyer's God. You only had to read my contributions to today's proceedings to understand this. It's not as though any of us are strangers. Please don't turn out to be yet another disinegenuous twat. I've got higher hopes for you. Not that you'll become a theist... just that you'll be sincere. If I crave anything here, more than intelligence, it is sincerity. Give me that and I won't ever call you a cunt, I promise.

Regarding moaning ... my memory fails me ... if you could provide me with a link?

Every question is a polite moan, in that it behests a reasonable response to an enquiry which [supposedly] was not [yet] forthcoming. I have no problem addressing such moans. I have moans myself. I have aired a few of them already. I'm already worried that you're beginning to look like a Carphone Warehouse rep, but I'm definitely giving you the benefit of the doubt until I'm sure.

Scott is making the claim ... I will render unto Scott as it bears Scott's mark. It's irrelevant anyway.

It appears that there's a mode of rational thought here [of yours] which usurps reason, but neither Scott nor yourself apparently wish to discuss this in public. I'm beginning to wonder whether the pair of you are Destroyer in disguise.

scott1328 wrote:something doesn't exist and proclaim victory.

Oh dear ....

romansh wrote:

archibald wrote:Daniel Dennett's review of Sam Harris' book/essay, 'Free Will':
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/ref ... -free-will
Sam Harris' response:
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the ... tes-lament
I find myself agreeing almost if not completely with Sam Harris.

I read both Free Will and Freedom Evolves. I found Sam's arguments on point ... while I agreed with 99% of what Dan wrote he did not address the central issue if everything is determined by the aggregate of quantum phenomena then how could we have done otherwise. The fact there may be free wills worth wanting out there ... Kant and James (no not ours) have seen through that.

Dennett did not do himself any favours with that review. Sam just about stayed this side of civilized with his response.

There may be some things which are worth wanting (or which are useful if you like) but free will is not one of them and Dennett makes no substantial arguments in favour of free will.

For example, in these videos.......I am not even remotely convinced. He may be talking accurately about the capacities and abilities that we have, but (a) they do not include free will and (b) they are not compatible with determinism.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Utai74HjPJE

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=joCOWaaTj4A

Quite honestly, I think he talks rubbish, in the final analysis.


Ps I think they both got a little tetchy in those written exchanges I posted earlier.

romansh wrote:

scott1328 wrote:something doesn't exist and proclaim victory.

Oh dear ....

Indeed.

Note to self: consider nuanced use of the term 'phlogiston'.

The interviewers in those videos didn't ask Dan the questions I would have asked him.

James please reread my interchange with you ...
I never said god was irrelevant to free will ... just Destroyer's.

I asked that Destroyer's reply would be on a relevant thread ... admittedly it was in reply to you ... but I did ask you to expound on how god can give us free will. Though I suspect you will get a lot of uphill. (quite rightly)

Regarding mode of thought ... for two millennia there was a school of thought asking what are the consequences of everything being a result of cause. Only since the enlightenment we [well some of us] have side stepped issue and gone for a compatibilist definition that might be worth wanting [as if that is a reasoned argument].