Free will vs Omniscience

Why are you still here Phat? I'm here because it fascinates me watching delusional people at work and wondering wtf? But you're convinced by this nonsense yet still doubt it so much that you have to constantly argue it. It's like you have to pit yourself against reality to prove your own delusion.

Just for the record and ignoring the faked, those 'manifestations' are likely to be real - that is felt as real by those that experience them - that is, the poor sods that experience them are so sucked in by the charismatic nonsense that's all around them that they really do experience it. But it's a mental disorder, ffs.

quote:

---

Those who profess a belief in demonic possession, also referred to as possessive trance disorder,[1] have sometimes ascribed to possession the symptoms associated with physical or mental illnesses, such as hysteria, Tourette syndrome, epilepsy,[34] schizophrenia,[35]conversion disorder or dissociative identity disorder.[36] In its article on Dissociative Identity Disorder, the DSM-5 states, "Possession-form identities in dissociative identity disorder typically manifest as behaviors that appear as if a 'spirit,' supernatural being, or outside person has taken control such that the individual begins speaking or acting in a distinctly different manner.[37]" It is not uncommon to ascribe the experience of sleep paralysis to demonic possession, although it's not a physical or mental illness.[38] The symptoms vary across cultures.[39] Demonic possession is not a valid psychiatric or medical diagnosis recognized by either the DSM-5 or the ICD-10.[40] The DSM-5 indicates that personality states of dissociative identity disorder may be interpreted as possession in some cultures, and instances of spirit possession are often related to traumatic experiences—suggesting that possession experiences may be caused by mental distress.[41] Some have expressed concern that belief in demonic possession can limit access to health care for the mentally ill.[42] Studies have found that alleged demonic possessions can be related to trauma.[41]

---

Demonic possession - Wikipedia

And, of course, this delusion is seen in many religious groups; it's not simply Christian.

Phat writes: I also see the argument you are attempting to make about an all-knowing God, but what type of God are you trying to say would better explain things?

No god ever imagined has ever been a true explanation of anything.

However a god without foreknowledge who was the creator of all that is, seen and unseen might not be evil.

It is still unnecessary though.

What you can or cannot imagine only limits what god you create. Any God or god that humans can describe must be a product and creation of the human imagination.

Fine. Enjoy a world of no spirit.

That's the only world that exists; there is zero evidence that "spirit" exists and overwhelming evidence that all the religious spirit is simply fantasy.

I see no evidence it would be possible to ever see any evidence for anything other than purely natural events.

OK, you see no possibility to have an evidence to support an idea.
That means, you will also have no possibility to see an evidence to against that idea.
If so, what would you say about the idea?

overwhelming evidence that all the religious spirit is simply fantasy.

Please give ONE.

juv writes: OK, you see no possibility to have an evidence to support an idea. That means, you will also have no possibility to see an evidence to against that idea.

No, silly child, it does not mean I will have have no possibility to see an(y) evidence to(sic) against that idea and in fact the evidence against what is marketed as supernatural is overwhelming.

The evidence that the Bible is simply a human creation and filled with errors, impossibilities, fantasy, contradictions and evolving folk tales is overwhelming.

Understand, I am a Cradle Creedal Christian raised in a Christian family, educated in a Christian School and a member of a recognized Christian Church.

I have no problem with you or any of the Evangelicals believing the nonsense you try to market but I certainly can only laugh when you claim any of it is evidence of anything more than your beliefs.

However should someone actually show up with evidence or even a reasoned argument then certainly I might be persuaded to reevaluate my position.

That every religious nut down through the ages has claimed what they assert to be evidence when others look at it and just laugh.

Phat writes: All that I have are my experiences. Experiences that you likely never had.

As I have told you before, you should assume that I have had the same experiences as you.

The difference is that you have interpreted them incorrectly. You use the believe-everything-the-apologists-tell-you method. I use the nothing-is-true-without-good-reason method.

Phat writes: I had many reasons I could have used to leave the faith. Whats the difference between you and I?

The difference is that I had no reason to stay while you had no reason to leave - i.e. the apologists hadn't told you to leave.

Phat writes: ... no human could imitate such a sound...

You don't know that.

Phat writes: Did you realize that at worst, you were definitely experiencing something unexplained?

I see things all the time that I can't explain. I don't assume that nobody can explain them.

What you see is not "unexplained". See Tangle's explanation. The problem is that you reject the explanation.

Phat writes: All that science shows us is that people can and do believe anything.

That's what I said. And your anything is no different from anybody else's anything.

The evidence that the Bible is simply a human creation and filled with errors, impossibilities, fantasy, contradictions and evolving folk tales is overwhelming.

Again, this is the second time I challenge you to give just ONE such case of Biblical error. Don't disappoint me.

That every religious nut down through the ages has claimed what they assert to be evidence when others look at it and just laugh.

Of course. What do you expect? Have evidences on religion like on sciences? That is ridiculous.

Evidences on faith is personal. I see evidences, and I try to share it with you. If you do not see, that is too bad. It is your loss, not mine. I see everything you see, but you do not see the most important thing I see.

Get that? That is the nature of religion.

The creation alleged in the beginning in the Genesis 1 myth.

Tangle writes: It's seems a perfectly obvious point to make that our freewill is bounded. We are restrained to varying degrees by our sense of morality - empathy.

Absolutely true.

I also can't decide to ignore gravity. I can greatly reduce it's affects (by going into space) or counter act them (by blowing forced air up in order to 'float') - but I can't decide to ignore it.

I also can't choose to create matter ex nihilo.

Neither can I choose to change the mind of a stubborn donkey.

And I can't decide to kill a baby without feeling remorse.

But none of these things indicate that I do not "have this thing we call freewill."

This is what I was first responding to:
Message 981

Tangle writes: All you people who think they have this thing you call freewill, can you tell me whether you feel capable of shooting a child in the head tomorrow? Forgetting whether our secular society and your god's justice systems would frown on it, could you do it? A robot could do it - the very thing that you claim we would be if we had no free will. A psychopath could do it - they actually do possess free will; they are not hampered by any sense of inborn and learnt empathy, so if they wanted to, they could. Personally my free will to do many of the things that are morally wrong - stealing, raping, pillaging etc - I am incapable of. I can't even covet an ox, that's how fettered I am. And I'm an atheist - the very devil! Free will is a religious fiction.

I may not be able to do any of the things above, due to the constraints upon my freewill.
But - I still have freewill and I do not think it is a religious fiction.

Because I can choose pink lemonade over white lemonade.
Because I can choose to kill a baby or not to kill a baby.
Because I can choose to take classes in school or play video games or go for a drive or hang out with friends and family.
Because I can choose to say these words or those words when speaking.
Because I can choose to try and be nice, or disregard other people's feelings on purpose.

Sure - empathy is one of the many, many things that constrains (to varying degrees) my ability to choose "whatever I want."

Freewill is more of a "in this situation vs. that situation" choice-out-of-available-options kind of thing. Not some sort of "if you can't choose one specific, detailed thing - then you cannot ever choose anything" binary nonsense. It just so happens that most people alive find themselves in situations where they do have available options and the ability to choose out of them.

When we have such choices, and the "choice" comes from the being and not controlled by external forces - we call this "having freewill."
Even if we don't have "all options."

Tangle writes: Stile writes: I didn't say I could casually kill a baby. I know you didn't but that was my requirement.

If I mis-understood you, and you just meant that constraints exist upon our freewill, even though we still have freewill...

Then I absolutely agree.