Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
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.
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.
jamest wrote: Please explain your public comments publicly.
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?
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.
scott1328 wrote:Ask me what?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
scott1328 wrote:something doesn't exist and proclaim victory.
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.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests