Free will, determanism and all that (choices, choice)

[PureX]

Originally Posted by stemann

So we are using an Ontological argument here, if we are going to start defining God as things. Like you say, PureX, it is subjective since people sometimes tend to believe that the universe cannot "just" appear for no "reason."

Yes. I think subjectivism is based more on personal experiences then on logic, and this is why trying to use a logical argument against a subjective opinion (especially one as strongly held as the idea of "God") rarely produces any result but further entrenchment on both sides.

[stemann]

Originally Posted by PureX

Yes. I think subjectivism is based more on personal experiences then on logic, and this is why trying to use a logical argument against a subjective opinion (especially one as strongly held as the idea of "God") rarely produces any result but further entrenchment on both sides.

So... not good news for rf.com then?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by PureX

But when one defines the universe as finite, and "God" as infinite, that point becomes moot. And the real question becomes why have they chosen to define the universe and God as they have? And the answer to that question isn't going to be found in rationalism, but in subjectivism. Which is why throwing logic at a 'believer' never works.

But it doesn't "become moot" if God is still considered to be any part of the universe. If the things that make up the universe have cause (even of an endless chain), and God is a part of that, then (at least a part of) God has a cause.

Subjectivist theism denies that God is not part of the universe.
EDIT: Okay, that's not quite correct. Subjectivist theism denies that any god we can have knowledge of is not a part of the universe.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by roli

First of all you can create a machine or whatever you want, but it's function is always subject to the NATURAL laws,or self existent laws that are naturally present,not laws that we create we as humans,we can only function within the naturally existent laws.
If there is a self existent law then there must be one whom governs that very law,but many will not accept that logic

It is not logic, though. The definition of a law in scientific application contains nothing about an intelligent originator or a governor. In science, a law is "a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under similar conditions." In other words, what makes it a law is that it doesn't change under repeated testing.

Originally Posted by roli

If chance is not an oxymoron then please tell me what is created around you that has self evolved without any planning ,logic,design or purpose.
If you ever looked into the human body and it's actual function you would never walk away with the idea we arrived by pure chance,there are to many complex operations within the human body to assume chance ,the impossibilities of chance would dumb found you and if you want those probabilities from reknown scientists I wil send them to you.
If lead ,wood,metal and rubber where left in a garage for a million years and there was a chemical explosion would it create a pencil, logic says, as well as evidence indicates there has been no such occurence,but evolutionists reason says. by chance a pencil could exist out of such an explosion,what are the chances.
You might be afraid to look into any furhter

Evolution does not produce things by chance. Mutations happen by chance, but that is a different thing. "Chance" in that context means that we are unable to predict that a particular mutation will happen.

Chance would not produce a pencil from an explosion of lead, wood, metal and rubber --that would be a miracle. The best that chance could produce is a random scatting of the ingredients. That's because chance is dependent upon us and how we observe --the universe is not. Chance is us leaving things up to the universe to decide how they happen.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by stemann

Your terminology is confusing yourself; I think: He can't not be much of a God because He is the God.

I don't know what God is made of, but I assume Theists don't know what quarks are made of- although they are rather sure that they must have been created by a consciousness.

I hardly used sophistication to be termed "terminology". Nonetheless I'm still missing what your getting at....oh well...

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Faint

I have a hunch he's just pointing out the flaw of the old "watchmaker" arguement. Namely for a being to create a complex universe, said being must be even more complex than the universe that it creates. And if so...where would a complex being like "God" come from? Logically, God's creator/source would need to be an EVEN MORE complex being. And so on.

That is as complex as "God just is". Either way you go, it boggles the mind.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by stemann

So... not good news for rf.com then?

Not if we're looking to change people's opinions. However, debate is still an interesting process, in that it's a way of getting to see the world through the eyes and minds of others, and it's a way of possibly changing our OWN minds, presumably for the better.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Willamena

But it doesn't "become moot" if God is still considered to be any part of the universe. If the things that make up the universe have cause (even of an endless chain), and God is a part of that, then (at least a part of) God has a cause.

But you are arriving at this proposition by using logic. Whereas the "believer" has already chosen personal experience over logic as their method of ascertaining truth. So from their perspective, your argument is moot.

Originally Posted by Willamena

Subjectivist theism denies that God is not part of the universe.
EDIT: Okay, that's not quite correct. Subjectivist theism denies that any god we can have knowledge of is not a part of the universe.

I don't think you can lump subjective theism up like that. "God" has been defined by the experiences of the individual. And these individual experiences are all unique.