Free will, freedom from what?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course you know why there's resistance to the notion & evidence of a begnning.

He said it himself, just up-thread: Nah, he only needs the finite universe, because then he can make the (completely accidental) discovery that the universe needs a first cause, and *that could only mean God.

Oh yes...I know. And the motive this betrays for denying the evidence is the fear they have that it just might lead to God. They've said it themselves...they know where this goes.

But not liking the conclusion is a very backward and unscientific reason for refusing the evidence.

I assume I will probably die someday. I assume our planet will probably be destroyed someday when the sun goes into a supernova. Those are inductive conclusions. Do I believe in a God? That's a bit more murky from a logical and scientific standpoint. Don't you think?

If you assume you will die, then you already believe in the second law of thermodynamics, or entropy, because it's one of the multitudinous proofs of that very fact. That means the universe had a beginning...it means that you have to believe that. It's really simple to understand. You should be able to connect those dots.

Likewise, if the universe is expanding out from a center, then at one time, long ago, it had to come from that center. And that center must have been much more dense than the present universe is...immeasurably more dense. That's the Big Bang.

It's not complicated. Generating the science is, perhaps; but the understanding it requires is not. All the science is well-documented, as I've shown by reference. The deduction from that science is very, very straightforward. A person of moderate intelligence can't miss it.

Now, the further deduction to God takes a little explaining. But until one grasps the basic science, there's not much point in trying to develop that further.

[Immanuel Can]

Unfortunately for you, anyone who isn't braindead knows that we don't have actual scientific evidence for a beginning. It's a popular idea, but there are plenty of other ideas as well.

You should maybe click on those links and read...assuming you can absorb information written at around a middle-school level.

Well, personally I would have provided links that at least mention the idea of the universe's beginning/end, but as you said I'm very simple

You have said it yourself. You're very simple. But this is a philosophy site, and not for very simple thinkers. There may be other social media sites that suit the persona you're projecting better than this one.

Happy trails, I guess.

[Atla]

Now, the further deduction to God takes a little explaining.

Ah there we go

[henry quirk]

It's all part & parcel. Deny free will cuz being one means yeah, it's your fault; deny God cuz His being means yeah, you'll answer for it.

No responsibility, no accountability.

[Gary Childress]

Oh yes...I know. And the motive this betrays for denying the evidence is the fear they have that it just might lead to God. They've said it themselves...they know where this goes.

But not liking the conclusion is a very backward and unscientific reason for refusing the evidence.

I assume I will probably die someday. I assume our planet will probably be destroyed someday when the sun goes into a supernova. Those are inductive conclusions. Do I believe in a God? That's a bit more murky from a logical and scientific standpoint. Don't you think?

If you assume you will die, then you already believe in the second law of thermodynamics, or entropy, because it's one of the multitudinous proofs of that very fact. That means the universe had a beginning...it means that you have to believe that. It's really simple to understand. You should be able to connect those dots.

Likewise, if the universe is expanding out from a center, then at one time, long ago, it had to come from that center. And that center must have been much more dense than the present universe is...immeasurably more dense. That's the Big Bang.

It's not complicated. Generating the science is, perhaps; but the understanding it requires is not. All the science is well-documented, as I've shown by reference. The deduction from that science is very, very straightforward. A person of moderate intelligence can't miss it.

Now, the further deduction to God takes a little explaining. But until one grasps the basic science, there's not much point in trying to develop that further.

So you believe that there is a deductive argument for the existence of a singular super intelligent awareness to the whole universe that is not identical to either the universe or to us? Is that correct?

[Gary Childress]

It's all part & parcel. Deny free will cuz being one means yeah, it's your fault; deny God cuz His being means yeah, you'll answer for it.

No responsibility, no accountability.

Well, according to some accounts, some of us may be going to hell because some of us don't believe with all our heart that Jesus was God incarnate. Will I "answer" for that when I reach the "pearly gates"?

[Immanuel Can]

It's all part & parcel. Deny free will cuz being one means yeah, it's your fault; deny God cuz His being means yeah, you'll answer for it.

No responsibility, no accountability.

Yes. The flip side, though, is "no freedom." So the only way a Determinist can have his freedom (in practice) but deny his responsibiilty (in theory) is by keeping the two inconsistent: voila, "Compatiblism."

[Immanuel Can]

So you believe that there is a deductive argument...

I'll answer your question if you read the previous argument, and show you understand it. If you do, you won't need to ask the question anymore.

[Gary Childress]

So you believe that there is a deductive argument...

I'll answer your question if you read the previous argument, and show you understand it. If you do, you won't need to ask the question anymore.

I understand red shift and the law of thermodynamics. Can you now show me the "deductive" argument for God?

[Immanuel Can]

So you believe that there is a deductive argument...

I'll answer your question if you read the previous argument, and show you understand it. If you do, you won't need to ask the question anymore.

I understand red shift and the law of thermodynamics. Can you now show me the "deductive" argument for God?

"For God." You mean, "for the existence of God?" That's the right thing to ask. Because we're not going to use the same strategy to unpack the particular nature of the God in question. We're only going to show that some sort of Supreme Being exists.

Here we go.

P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.

Questions?

[Gary Childress]

I'll answer your question if you read the previous argument, and show you understand it. If you do, you won't need to ask the question anymore.

I understand red shift and the law of thermodynamics. Can you now show me the "deductive" argument for God?

"For God." You mean, "for the existence of God?" That's the right thing to ask. Because we're not going to use the same strategy to unpack the particular nature of the God in question. We're only going to show that some sort of Supreme Being exists.

Here we go.

P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.

Questions?

No questions. I agree with the premises and conclusion. Can you show me the deductive argument for God now?

[henry quirk]

Well, according to some accounts, some of us may be going to hell because some of us don't believe with all our heart that Jesus was God incarnate. Will I "answer" for that when I reach the "pearly gates"?

Hell if I know.

What I do know: you're a free will, capable of moral judgement and, therefore, subject to moral judgement. You're responsible for what you do in this world, and more often than not, you'll get what you *deserve in this world. Is there a next world? I don't know.




*play with fire: get burned; plant roses: enjoy the sight & scent...sow what you plant, there's always a consequence, etc.

[Atla]

"For God." You mean, "for the existence of God?" That's the right thing to ask. Because we're not going to use the same strategy to unpack the particular nature of the God in question. We're only going to show that some sort of Supreme Being exists.

Here we go.

P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.

Questions?

You better convince someone now IC, because God is ever so slightly displeased with your performance today.

-2 points for you today so far. You better put in the extra effort now.

[Gary Childress]

Well, according to some accounts, some of us may be going to hell because some of us don't believe with all our heart that Jesus was God incarnate. Will I "answer" for that when I reach the "pearly gates"?

Hell if I know.

What I do know: you're a free will, capable of moral judgement and, therefore, subject to moral judgement. You're responsible for what you do in this world, and more often than not, you'll get what you *deserve in this world. Is there a next world? I don't know.




*play with fire: get burned; plant roses: enjoy the sight & scent...sow what you plant, there's always a consequence, etc.

I agree. There are always consequences. However, do the consequences always follow justifiably from the act?

[henry quirk]

Yeah, as I say...

No wonder, then, soft determinism is popular among the philo-folk. Incoherent as it is, it still lets the compatibilist retain some shred of himself, as a person.