Free Will vs Determinism

[surreptitious57]

The experiment has two very obvious flaws in it so you need to come up with something much better. The first flaw is lack of evidence
and the second flaw is confirmation bias. There is also the possibility of goalpost shifting upon your part were I to actually conduct the
experiment and not find evidence of God after the required time. Although as I am not going to waste time on it the point is academic

[henry quirk]

Oh, the experiment is way more flawed than that, surrep, but I'm gonna give it a shot anyway.

You hear, Mannie? I'll give it a shot.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, the experiment is way more flawed than that, surrep, but I'm gonna give it a shot anyway.

You hear, Mannie? I'll give it a shot.

I believe you. And I respect that.

[Immanuel Can]

The experiment has two very obvious flaws in it so you need to come up with something much better. The first flaw is lack of evidence
and the second flaw is confirmation bias. There is also the possibility of goalpost shifting upon your part were I to actually conduct the
experiment and not find evidence of God after the required time. Although as I am not going to waste time on it the point is academic

Well, an untried experiment always yields no results. In response to your first objection, evidence comes from experiments, not from not doing them. Secondly, confirmation bias is always a danger for everybody. But the hope of science is that a thoughtful person can counter it by being aware of that propensity. I think you can trust in your self-awareness for that.

Thirdly, you can count on this: I won't move the goalposts. That's a promise.

But for the experiment, you do need to invests just a tiny modicum of faith -- that is, just a tiny belief that maybe, maybe, maybe God does actually want to speak to you. If one is totally closed at the start, then that's when confirmation bias is the real danger. Nothing comes from no trust.

Or, to put it this way: "...without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him...." (Hebrews 11:6). God Himself sets the basic requirement of investment you must make...just a tiny bit of faith, and just a tiny belief that maybe He Rewards those who sincerely seek for Him.

But it doesn't have to be more than it takes to try the experiment.

Seems fair, doesn't it?

[surreptitious57]

It is not really an experiment as such since there is no way it could be observed or replicated other than by the one doing it. That would automatically invalidate any evidence it produced because it could not be objectively examined. The time limit is also entirely arbitrary
Because why would God reveal his presence after thirty days. But there is no evidence for him any way. If there was then I would not be
atheist nor would any one else be for that matter. Because I do not or indeed cannot accept the existence of anything without evidence

[thedoc]

It is not really an experiment as such since there is no way it could be observed or replicated other than by the one doing it. That would automatically invalidate any evidence it produced because it could not be objectively examined. The time limit is also entirely arbitrary
Because why would God reveal his presence after thirty days. But there is no evidence for him any way. If there was then I would not be
atheist nor would any one else be for that matter. Because I do not or indeed cannot accept the existence of anything without evidence

No, anyone can try the experiment and if they get a result, it would be from God, however "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Too many people expect that God does not have free will and the knowledge of what people are trying, and will respond to a fixed set of phenomenon in a fixed manner. I believe that God can choose who to reveal to and who not to reveal to more so than I or any other human. If you know the mind of God then you know more than I.

[Immanuel Can]

It is not really an experiment as such since there is no way it could be observed or replicated other than by the one doing it.

You mean, it would not be "scientifically verified," not, it would not be an "experiment."

Experience is sometimes compelling for the one who has it, despite being non-transferrable. For instance, if nobody has lived with your spouse, especially through the particular things you have, then nobody is qualified to verify your experience in that regard....

But that doesn't suggest your experience was not real, or that you got it wrong.

So nobody's asking you to accept anything without evidence. But you need to be open to experiential, one-observer evidence; which is actually the way you probably operate most of the time, in truth, if you're like most people.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Experience is sometimes compelling for the one who has it, despite being non-transferrable. For instance, if nobody has lived with your spouse, especially through the particular things you have, then nobody is qualified to verify your experience in that regard....

There are reasons that spouses vouch for each other.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Experience is sometimes compelling for the one who has it, despite being non-transferrable. For instance, if nobody has lived with your spouse, especially through the particular things you have, then nobody is qualified to verify your experience in that regard....

There are reasons that spouses vouch for each other.

Right. And not only is it reasonable for them to do so, but there's generally nobody more qualified to speak authoritatively about what it's like to live with that spouse.

But it's not science, per se, because it's not replicable. That doesn't make it inferior knowledge, just personal, experiential knowledge.

[davidm]

A thread about free will and determinism has been derailed by someone who says we should talk to the ceiling to try to brainwash ourselves into believing that his imaginary sky monster exists. And people are going with that discussion.

[henry quirk]

HA!

Yeah, cuz so much new ground is bein' covered, in ths thread, in the great debate between the free-willed and the determined.

It's bloody shame Mannie and me should derail things.

[thedoc]

A thread about free will and determinism has been derailed by someone who says we should talk to the ceiling to try to brainwash ourselves into believing that his imaginary sky monster exists. And people are going with that discussion.

To some free will and determinism are directly related to the existence of God, so it is not a derailment to everyone, only to those who deny God's existence in the first place. So let the thread progress as it is, if you don't like the program, change the channel.

[Belinda]

A thread about free will and determinism has been derailed by someone who says we should talk to the ceiling to try to brainwash ourselves into believing that his imaginary sky monster exists. And people are going with that discussion.

To some free will and determinism are directly related to the existence of God, so it is not a derailment to everyone, only to those who deny God's existence in the first place. So let the thread progress as it is, if you don't like the program, change the channel.

Your magical God , and Free Will, are both paranormal and unnatural.

[thedoc]

A thread about free will and determinism has been derailed by someone who says we should talk to the ceiling to try to brainwash ourselves into believing that his imaginary sky monster exists. And people are going with that discussion.

To some free will and determinism are directly related to the existence of God, so it is not a derailment to everyone, only to those who deny God's existence in the first place. So let the thread progress as it is, if you don't like the program, change the channel.

Your magical God , and Free Will, are both paranormal and unnatural.

OK, but they exist.

[Arising_uk]

If your 'God" is omniscient they don't.