Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Excellent demonstration of how to be an ass in print, quash.

You are in rare form today!

---

Did I offend your soul? Because you don't have one.

---

Lying does not improve your quality of argument, quash.

---

Your lack of evidence is showing again.

We experience the world through our sense organs. Which organ tells you that you have a soul? Where is it located? Is it solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter? Where did it come from where did it go?

---

Weak effort, quash. Using your own rules, what scientific instrument proves you love your children or your spouse? What machine can tell you who will tell the truth no matter what the cost to them? What tool can you use to identify which infant in a ward will be the most selfless or generous as an adult?

You cannot depend on tech to address human qualities, and it's absurd to try to deny the reality of human qualities simply because you want to ignore them.

My wife had a pain monitor when our daughter was born, but while that monitor can tell how much pain she was in, it could not apply the context of childbirth to that occasion. So someone might falsely equate childbirth to a physical assault because of the comparable pain levels, missing the meaning behind each type of pain.

Having a soul becomes evident not just in terms of physical suffering, such as physical pain, hunger, or fatigue, but also in shame, fear, hope, elation and despair, or dozens of genuine emotional events..

Comprehension of the event's context is also critical. Just because I was excited to see Baylor win a national championship in men's basketball, should not confuse people into thinking that event was the same as my wedding day, or my daughter's graduation. Mere scale of excitement does not define depth, after all.

Shall I go on?

---

My body produces feelings of pain and emotions. Those processes are pretty well understood and all have a basis in the material world. Souls are wishful thinking.

---

I'm not so sure about that. We understand processes that are associated with cognition, but we don't really know what consciousness is or why we perceive ourselves as having free will.

---

There is debate about it, sure. The debate is over what constitutes consciousness, not consciousness versus soul.

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

"I addressed your point "

No, not even a try.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I addressed your point "

No, not even a try.

---

Yawn.

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I addressed your point "

No, not even a try.

---

Yawn.

---

Indeed, an apt summary of your efforts to contribute here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

---

I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.

How do you activate your soul?

So boiled down this forum is just space dust talking to itself?

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

---

I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.

How do you activate your soul?

---

Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

---

I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.

How do you activate your soul?

---

Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.

---

It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.

Some have faith in a Creator, others have faith that everything came from nothing.

Nothing>space dust>primordial ooze>chimp>MENSA members and the rest of us.

Order from disorder
Rational from irrational
Objective morals from something before the human brain

What is the object of your faith?

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

---

I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.

How do you activate your soul?

---

Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.

---

It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.

---

Your reasoning:

-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain

Any questions?

If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

---

I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.

How do you activate your soul?

---

Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.

---

It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.

---

Your reasoning:

-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain

Any questions?

If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.

---

First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.

Loving it, love this thread

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

---

I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.

How do you activate your soul?

---

Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.

---

It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.

---

Your reasoning:

-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain

Any questions?

If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.

---

First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.

---

If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?

Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?

You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?

TXScientist and Waco47, you've both been real quiet.
Feel free to address the above question.
Actually, ANY serious poster, feel free.

Waco47, this particulary is of interest to you especially. You don't believe God can move atoms and molecules in the physical universe - but if God can't, then how did YOU do it in your brain, as I explained above?

Waco47 = tired tired tired

You guys have worn him out

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

---

I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.

How do you activate your soul?

---

Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.

---

It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.

---

Your reasoning:

-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain

Any questions?

If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.

---

First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.

---

If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?

Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?

You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?

---

I could tell you again but you'd call it circular again.

We are now in a deterministic loop...

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

---

I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.

How do you activate your soul?

---

Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.

---

It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.

---

Your reasoning:

-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain

Any questions?

If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.

---

First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.

---

If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?

Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?

You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?

---

I've been quiet because I've been busy with work, and haven't checked in until now. I'm not retired.

Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed to evaluate data and options and make optimal choices, and computers don't have a soul. Chimps, even dogs, have the ability as do other animals of higher order and brain power to make choices. Do they have souls? All of what you describe is a process of neural activity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

---

It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

Quote:

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?

Quote:

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.

---

The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.

If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.

Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.

I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.

---

You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.

Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.

---

Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.

An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.

And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.

---

Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.

I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.

If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.

So what's the name of your religion?

---

If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.

'empirical testable evidence.'

That is, what TS decides counts as evidence. God at the mercy of Man.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

The evidence of reality tells us that our universe exists, and that it's plausible that our universe is part of a multiverse. Our existence is confined to this universe and our physiology is made up of elements that interact within the confines of this universe according to the physical laws that govern this universe. There is no evidence of any external agent operating on the universe. There are plausible explanations for the existence of this universe without the need for any supernatural shenanigans.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

---

I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.

How do you activate your soul?

---

Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.

---

It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.

---

Your reasoning:

-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain

Any questions?

If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.

---

First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.

---

If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?

Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?

You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?

---

I've been quiet because I've been busy with work, and haven't checked in until now. I'm not retired.

Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed to evaluate data and options and make optimal choices, and computers don't have a soul. Chimps, even dogs, have the ability as do other animals of higher order and brain power to make choices. Do they have souls? All of what you describe is a process of neural activity.

---

"Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed...." Sounds like an argument for intelligent design. You need a programmer.

Computers don't make free will choices. They only do what they are programmed to do. That's just like saying the atoms and molecules in our brains only follow what the physical laws of the universe have determined them to follow (the predetermined "program") That's saying there is no free will or choice in a naturalistic universe. You're only making my point.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

---

It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

Quote:

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?

Quote:

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.

---

The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.

If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.

Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.

I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.

---

You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.

Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.

---

Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.

An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.

And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.

---

Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.

I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.

If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.

So what's the name of your religion?

---

If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.

---

You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.

Did y'all retire Waco47 from SicEm?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

The evidence of reality tells us that our universe exists, and that it's plausible that our universe is part of a multiverse. Our existence is confined to this universe and our physiology is made up of elements that interact within the confines of this universe according to the physical laws that govern this universe. There is no evidence of any external agent operating on the universe. There are plausible explanations for the existence of this universe without the need for any supernatural shenanigans.

---

TS: a multiverse is plausible even though there is no evidence of a multiverse

also TS: a Creator is not plausible even though there is evidence of an uncaused, first cause.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

The evidence of reality tells us that our universe exists, and that it's plausible that our universe is part of a multiverse. Our existence is confined to this universe and our physiology is made up of elements that interact within the confines of this universe according to the physical laws that govern this universe. There is no evidence of any external agent operating on the universe. There are plausible explanations for the existence of this universe without the need for any supernatural shenanigans.

---

Then what you are saying is that there is no free will or choice in a naturalistic universe. That's my point.

Turtles Multiverses all the way down.

At this point, there is much more evidence of turtles than a multiverse

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

---

I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.

How do you activate your soul?

---

Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.

---

It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.

---

Your reasoning:

-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain

Any questions?

If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.

---

First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.

---

If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?

Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?

You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?

---

I've been quiet because I've been busy with work, and haven't checked in until now. I'm not retired.

Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed to evaluate data and options and make optimal choices, and computers don't have a soul. Chimps, even dogs, have the ability as do other animals of higher order and brain power to make choices. Do they have souls? All of what you describe is a process of neural activity.

---

"Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed...." Sounds like an argument for intelligent design. You need a programmer.

Computers don't make free will choices. They only do what they are programmed to do. That's just like saying the atoms and molecules in our brains only follow what the physical laws of the universe have determined them to follow (the predetermined "program") That's saying there is no free will or choice in a naturalistic universe. You're only making my point.

---

Right, computers are programed. Your brain is the product of thousands of years of evolution. I asked earlier, I believe, what do you consider free will? Your brain has been programmed through learning, which is accomplished through your senses, and experiences in life. All of your decisions are made within the context of that framework.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

---

It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

Quote:

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?

Quote:

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.

---

The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.

If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.

Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.

I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.

---

You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.

Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.

---

Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.

An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.

And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.

---

Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.

I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.

If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.

So what's the name of your religion?

---

If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.

---

You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.

---

It's base upon sound solid deductive reasoning.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

The evidence of reality tells us that our universe exists, and that it's plausible that our universe is part of a multiverse. Our existence is confined to this universe and our physiology is made up of elements that interact within the confines of this universe according to the physical laws that govern this universe. There is no evidence of any external agent operating on the universe. There are plausible explanations for the existence of this universe without the need for any supernatural shenanigans.

---

Then what you are saying is that there is no free will or choice in a naturalistic universe. That's my point.

---

There is no evidence a 'soul' makes any decisions for you. Do you believe a dog has a soul? Your brain makes decisions within the context of what it has learned. How do you define free will?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

---

It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

Quote:

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?

Quote:

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.

---

The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.

If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.

Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.

I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.

---

You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.

Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.

---

Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.

An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.

And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.

---

Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.

I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.

If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.

So what's the name of your religion?

---

If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.

---

You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.

---

It's base upon sound solid deductive reasoning.

---

How is your "sound solid deductive reasoning" better than tarp dusters? Do your atoms move in a different manner than his?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

---

It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

Quote:

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?

Quote:

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.

---

The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.

If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.

Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.

I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.

---

You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.

Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.

---

Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.

An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.

And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.

---

Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.

I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.

If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.

So what's the name of your religion?

---

If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.

---

You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.

---

It's base upon sound solid deductive reasoning.

---

How is your "sound solid deductive reasoning" better than tarp dusters? Do your atoms move in a different manner than his?

---

His brain is choosing religious rote over critical thinking. You tell me how an all loving god, who is all powerful, can be internally consistent, if they allow pain and suffering. By definition, if they are all loving, they would use their overarching power to eliminate any 'good' reason for suffering. To do otherwise would mean they are not all loving.

I assume you believe in heaven. Is there pain and suffering in heaven?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.

---

Circular reasoning fail.

---

On your part maybe.

When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.

Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?

---

On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.

How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?

---

I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.

How do you activate your soul?

---

Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.

---

It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.

---

Your reasoning:

-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain

Any questions?

If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.

---

First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.

---

If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?

Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?

You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?

---

I've been quiet because I've been busy with work, and haven't checked in until now. I'm not retired.

Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed to evaluate data and options and make optimal choices, and computers don't have a soul. Chimps, even dogs, have the ability as do other animals of higher order and brain power to make choices. Do they have souls? All of what you describe is a process of neural activity.

---

"Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed...." Sounds like an argument for intelligent design. You need a programmer.

Computers don't make free will choices. They only do what they are programmed to do. That's just like saying the atoms and molecules in our brains only follow what the physical laws of the universe have determined them to follow (the predetermined "program") That's saying there is no free will or choice in a naturalistic universe. You're only making my point.

---

Right, computers are programed. Your brain is the product of thousands of years of evolution. I asked earlier, I believe, what do you consider free will? Your brain has been programmed through learning, which is accomplished through your senses, and experiences in life. All of your decisions are made within the context of that framework.

---

Free will is the ability to make true choices. Apparently, we are in agreement that in your naturalistic universe no free will or choice exists.