Free will or lack of.......

[the village idiot]

8 hours ago, the village idiot said:

Great stuff Ti

 

I was specifically after Onetruth's notion of God, but it will no doubt be good and really helpful to get all interpretations on the table. Much kudos to you and woodwizzard as a lot of people keep this stuff to themselves, and when conversation stops, so do some possibilities to grow.

Hopefully, in the interests of thread integrity, we can keep some emphasis on the free will implications.

Apologies to Onetruth, I just realised you had already answered the 'what is God to you?' question:

 

Meaningful way to describe God: easier to say what God is not.  God is not some Uber-King ruling/creating the world.  God does not love the good and hate evil, dictate morality or pass judgment.  (Except that, for all of these things, it can sometimes be useful to imagine that there is a god which has these properties).  God is that which illuminates the world.  The source of beauty, love, truth, wonder - things that could never be reduced to an algorithm or chemical process.  Our own consciousness, which is unchanging and disinterested.      

 

Still interested to hear why you call this God? 

 

Is it your understanding that God is (and only is) conciousness? I presume you are not a 'conciousness arising from the brain' adherent, ie. no brain-no consciousness?

[Rough Hewn]

What a great thread guys!
Some interesting ideas!
Personally I completely disagree with nearly everything posted about lack of free will and god.
But I'm glad we can all debate and share ideas.
[emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]

[Rough Hewn]

I will try to write down and post my own ridiculous ideas on free will later.
[emoji12]

[the village idiot]

9 minutes ago, Rough Hewn said:

I will try to write down and post my own ridiculous ideas on free will later.

I am quietly confident that if we continue to pile our ridiculous ideas one on top of the other, then inevitably, at some critical juncture, the sheer mass of stupidity will collapse in on itself, revealing the fabled black hole of inescapable truth.

 

Or something like that.

[Stubby]

19 minutes ago, the village idiot said:

I am quietly confident that if we continue to pile our ridiculous ideas one on top of the other, then inevitably, at some critical juncture, the sheer mass of stupidity will collapse in on itself, revealing the fabled black hole of inescapable truth.

 

Or something like that.

I'm on the edge of my seat ............

[onetruth]

1 hour ago, the village idiot said:

Still interested to hear why you call this God? 

 

Is it your understanding that God is (and only is) conciousness? I presume you are not a 'conciousness arising from the brain' adherent, ie. no brain-no consciousness?

I call it God because it seems like an appropriate name.  Let's define "God" (not necessary to believe in "God", let's just come up with a good working definition): God is perfect, God is eternal, God is everywhere, God is the source of our creation.  Could add other properties, (God is love, God is great, etc.) but they are perhaps a little more controversial; let's stick with those four: I think, believe in God or not, that they'd form a pretty acceptable definition for most people.  Now, the reality that I have spoken of previously fits this description.  It is perfect because it is absolute (there is nothing external to it).  It is eternal and omnipresent because it transcends time and space.  It is the source of our creation because our consciousness is in identity with it, even if our minds and bodies appear to be distinct.  God seems like the most suitable term to me.  On top of that, I can certainly understand why religious people would want to worship such a thing: knowledge of God is joyous.  All spiritual awakening can be seen as a realisation of reality (or, perhaps, a rejection of the non-real). 

 

I mentioned Spinoza in a previous post, who used the term "God, or nature" repeatedly in his Ethics.  I usually only use the term "God" when talking to people who would claim to believe in God, because the very word seems to repulse those who do not.  I can quite happily discuss that thing with atheists by simply substituting with "the fundamental nature of the universe" or some similarly ugly expression. 

 

Note that, although I've suggested some properties of God in the first paragraph, these are only for argument.  Language can not define or describe God because language (or any discipline) in necessarily limited.  But it's all we have.  I can discuss "The Fall" with Jehovah's Witnesses, as long as I secretly accept it is all allegory and metaphor - there is enough of the truth behind the stories for the discussion to have meaning.

 

Yes, God is consciousness (not sure about "and only is" - don't know if that limitation has any meaning).  Obviously this meaning of consciousness can not be brain derived.  That is mind, not consciousness.

[the village idiot]

32 minutes ago, onetruth said:

I call it God because it seems like an appropriate name.  Let's define "God" (not necessary to believe in "God", let's just come up with a good working definition): God is perfect, God is eternal, God is everywhere, God is the source of our creation.  Could add other properties, (God is love, God is great, etc.) but they are perhaps a little more controversial; let's stick with those four: I think, believe in God or not, that they'd form a pretty acceptable definition for most people.  Now, the reality that I have spoken of previously fits this description.  It is perfect because it is absolute (there is nothing external to it).  It is eternal and omnipresent because it transcends time and space.  It is the source of our creation because our consciousness is in identity with it, even if our minds and bodies appear to be distinct.  God seems like the most suitable term to me.  On top of that, I can certainly understand why religious people would want to worship such a thing: knowledge of God is joyous.  All spiritual awakening can be seen as a realisation of reality (or, perhaps, a rejection of the non-real). 

 

I mentioned Spinoza in a previous post, who used the term "God, or nature" repeatedly in his Ethics.  I usually only use the term "God" when talking to people who would claim to believe in God, because the very word seems to repulse those who do not.  I can quite happily discuss that thing with atheists by simply substituting with "the fundamental nature of the universe" or some similarly ugly expression. 

 

Note that, although I've suggested some properties of God in the first paragraph, these are only for argument.  Language can not define or describe God because language (or any discipline) in necessarily limited.  But it's all we have.  I can discuss "The Fall" with Jehovah's Witnesses, as long as I secretly accept it is all allegory and metaphor - there is enough of the truth behind the stories for the discussion to have meaning.

 

Yes, God is consciousness (not sure about "and only is" - don't know if that limitation has any meaning).  Obviously this meaning of consciousness can not be brain derived.  That is mind, not consciousness.

OK, excellent.

 

So in your view the 'fundamental nature of the universe' is conciousness, and you refer to this nature as God.

I would imagine most atheists are not repulsed by the use of the word God, it just causes a bit of needless confusion as the word God means some very specific things to different people, and to many of them these things amount to a lot more than just pure awareness.

 

I understand and agree with your view that conciousness is fundamental. Without it nothing can be 'known' to exist. It is also safe to say that existence without conciousness would be pointless.

 

Am I right in thinking that you believe nothing can exist without conciousness being present? Also, could you explain your conclusion that conciousness is eternal?

 

Sorry for all the probing but it is clear that a lot of us find this stuff fascinating, and I for one have no philosophy training and need things spelt out ad nauseum. Part of my brain thinks that sometimes the conclusions of philosophical thinking (although technically accurate) can be a barrier to achieving further real understanding.

[WesD]

15 minutes ago, the village idiot said:

OK, excellent.

 

So in your view the 'fundamental nature of the universe' is conciousness, and you refer to this nature as God.

I would imagine most atheists are not repulsed by the use of the word God, it just causes a bit of needless confusion as the word God means some very specific things to different people, and to many of them these things amount to a lot more than just pure awareness.

 

I understand and agree with your view that conciousness is fundamental. Without it nothing can be 'known' to exist. It is also safe to say that existence without conciousness would be pointless.

 

Am I right in thinking that you believe nothing can exist without conciousness being present? Also, could you explain your conclusion that conciousness is eternal?

 

Sorry for all the probing but it is clear that a lot of us find this stuff fascinating, and I for one have no philosophy training and need things spelt out ad nauseum. Part of my brain thinks that sometimes the conclusions of philosophical thinking (although technically accurate) can be a barrier to achieving further real understanding.

I’m glad your asking the questions, your use of words is much better than how I’d approach asking for basically more. 

[the village idiot]

2 minutes ago, WesD said:

I’m glad your asking the questions, your use of words is much better than how I’d approach asking for basically more. 

Don't be shy Wes I am limited to only asking the questions that occur to my fundamental nature of the universe. You may dig up some much more useful ones.

 

So far this thread has been beautifully non-judgemental, and I'm sure we can continue in that vein.

[Stubby]

God don't like me . We have never got on .