well i don't know where this train of thought will lead or if it's already been kicked around to death by infinitely cleverer loveshackers than me, but i was just wondering about the essence of free will, as opposed to its nature or even its very existence (as blockhead's recent thread alluded to) in relation to the question of whether or not god exists.
my thoughts were these.
assuming we are free to make a genuine choice about the existence of god (of course, true freedom suggests we are free NOT to make a choice too, including the choice "i don't know" which is another debating point entirely), our freedom to choose god must logically allow freedom not to choose god.
which means that in a world designed by god, free will MUST logically require that no empirical proof of god is EVER possible.
if incontrovertible proof of the existence (or not) of god was presented, logical free will would cease to exist - 'logical' because although we could choose to ignore the evidence, that choice would be logically inconsistent.
now in a world NOT designed by god, whilst free will and the desire to find meaning in life may still be human traits, any proof for the existence of god (or not) would not be necessarily inconclusive. it would be random.
the 'no god squad' believe that the lack of evidence for the existence of god is proof that there is no god but they accept, presumably, the fact that no empirical evidence exists proving that god doesn't exist.
but since a lack of proof is a vital by-product of the concept of free will, doesn't the fact that any proof for the existence of god is inconclusive, place the weight of probability on the fact that god probably does logically exist?
but this is flawed. it depends on being able to prove that the the lack of proof is necessarily inconclusive, as opposed to merely inconclusive. it also defeats its own object by claiming to prove the existence of god and therefore threatening our free will...
but surely god's plan is not to be purposely obtuse. he hasn't made a secret of the fact he exists. many people, including me, know without a shadow of a doubt there is a god.
what i'm trying to illustrate, very badly, is that the lack of empirical evidence is always going to be inconclusive, but this takes nothing away from the argument for god's existence - in fact it strengthens it. the lack of evidence is what makes the argument possible. phew.
and another thing. sorry. i've never believed that those who claim that god exists and those who claim he doesn't are equal. sure, both groups have every right to their opinion, but i'm arguing that some opinions are more equal than others.
surely those who claim there is no god have simply not discovered him YET. time may change that. those who claim there is a god, have already discovered him. these positions are not equal in their validity. those who thought they had discovered him and find they hadn't after all have also merely not discovered him YET.
so at best, non-believers can only claim to know 'up to this point' the conclusions their experience has led them to believe. they cannot know for certain what they will discover in the future. not having found god can never be assumed to be a permanent state. much the same as not having found love cannot be assumed to be a permanent state. and even if you turn from the love, you can never go back to not believing it exists.
someone who has found god has uncovered knowledge from which there is no going back. god must exist, he must always exist from that point, ergo he must have always existed. i submit this is the stronger argument of the two.
any takers?
__________________
sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment. ~rumi.
but they accept, presumably, the fact that no empirical evidence exists proving that god doesn't exist.
Some actually don't seem to, which is where I think their argument begins to fail.
the lack of empirical evidence is always going to be inconclusive, but this takes nothing away from the argument for god's existence - in fact it strengthens it. the lack of evidence is what makes the argument possible. phew.
Because it supports the first argument, yep.
even if you turn from the love, you can never go back to not believing it exists.
I've always responded to people who ask me to prove that God exists that they should prove to me that love exists. Most don't seem to get the analogy but it's valid for exactly that reason. Both God and love are unknowable except by experience and unprovable by logic.
__________________
I expect to pass through this world but once. Any good, therefore, that I can do or any kindness that I can show to my fellow creatures, let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.
but dyer, you're assuming two things. firstly that love is an emotion. i never claimed it was.
but even making that assumption, there's nothing in reading electrical impulses that implies they're a human invention. sure, the impulses and the conditions in which they can be recreated at will are inventions, but love as you seem to be categorizing it exists outside the human race too and would therefore also have to be a human projection.
secondly you're talking about human love. i didn't say god was human love.
That, Dyer, does not prove love! It only proves the existence of chemicals and brain patterns. There are also chemicals and brain patterns associated with religious experiences. In neither instance can cause-and-effect be definitively proven. These are symptoms rather than the actual source.
Every emotion, thought, action or process causes certain brain activities and has a location designated for it in the brain...some have tried to say, even spirituality itself. Many theories of thought do see god and love as the same thing, in many ways, so do I. I think that it is possible to observe as Moi said symptoms or effects of certain things in the brain, but to try to analyze the souls existence and connection with emotion is impossible. Their are no scans or test for that.
Originally posted by dyermaker
I don't buy the God/Love comparison.
Love is definitely a human invention. You can pinpoint the chemicals/electrical impulses involved in love.
I don't buy that Love is a human invention. How do you explain the reason God created humans? I've always thought one of the main reasons was so God could have abundance of love towards Him and humans?
__________________
"The conscience water saw it's maker, and blushed" - Water to Wine......
Originally posted by Moose
I don't buy that Love is a human invention.
I meant romantic love, I'm sure the chemicals involved have been around forever. Well, it's not even a universal thing. Westerners have a different perception of love than around the globe--maybe that's changing now, but for centuries romantic love was defined by literature, not pragmatism. Even chemically, I'm sure love is an evolutionary construction, having two parents in love will certainly aid in raising the child, at least at the beginning.
Quote:
How do you explain the reason God created humans?
That's a subject of theological debate. That was one of the biggest questions of John Calvin (the *other* JC ).
Frankly, the reason why I was created isn't an issue for me. At this point, I'll take what I'm given.
Quote:
I've always thought one of the main reasons was so God could have abundance of love towards Him and humans?
Seems kind of selfish?
It also doesn't seem to make sense.
I don't understand how even though God is omniscient and all-powerful, He suffers from periodic bouts of powerlessness. Like, in my mind, if God wanted to be loved, he would have done a way better job on us.
LOL - so we got created to be a fan club? That's why the accounts of heaven with everybody hanging around doing nothing but singing praises to God gags me. Any God I'd respect would want more out of the universe than to have a bunch of sycophants adoring him all the time. If that's what He wants, he could have dispensed with the idea of Earth and us and just created a heap of robo-praisers.
Originally posted by dyermaker
I don't understand how even though God is omniscient and all-powerful, He suffers from periodic bouts of powerlessness. Like, in my mind, if God wanted to be loved, he would have done a way better job on us.
sure, He could have made us more loving or specifically more inclined to find or believe or love Him, but where's the joy in that?
isn't the pleasure and the value of love defined by its being unbiddable?
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
). 
Linear Mode
