A question to atheists

Originally posted by Starrman
Okay, apologies, but that still doesn't really say anything about the subject.

It does if you consider that God tells us to follow His thoughts prior to following biological urges, emotions or any other impetus.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It does if you consider that God tells us to follow His thoughts prior to following biological urges, emotions or any other impetus.

My point is that those urges were put there by him. If LH's idea of the power of god is indeed enough to make you without your parents, is he not also responsible for your makeup? We're trying to ascertain if the biology is an intrinsic part of the process of free will or not.

Originally posted by Starrman
You would define the function before analysing the implication of origin?

Not necessarily; I merely thought it would be a good place to start in discussing whether to give in to any given desire at any given time.

Originally posted by Starrman
Sentience allows control over one's own thoughts. There is a difference between freedom of action and freedom of opportunity. While you can say that the 'me' that I am is likely to act in such ways as to get me into certain situations and my natural reaction to them is predetermined by my biology, I don't believe you can say that I do not have control of my reasoning when I am aware of it and am acting as such.

At least in the case of deliberate actions (such as my choosing to type these words), we know that the action is directly based on the thought that goes before it. If we cannot control our actions, what makes you think we control our thoughts?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
At least in the case of deliberate actions (such as my choosing to type these words), we know that the action is directly based on the thought that goes before it. If we cannot control our actions, what makes you think we control our thoughts?

It's a complicated subject to be sure, but what makes you think we cannot? There are both voluntary and involuntary processes in the brain, why should both thought and action not be used by both?

Originally posted by Starrman
It's a complicated subject to be sure, but what makes you think we cannot? There are both voluntary and involuntary processes in the brain, why should both thought and action not be used by both?

But that's the consequence of assuming that everything has a material or bio-chemical basis - it leaves us in a universe where free will simply doesn't exist. It's just a macro-level manifestation of atomic-level laws of physics. Even those things that we think are voluntary are not really so - they stem from the same physical laws that drive the involuntary actions.

Consider for a moment what this means for such things as morality and moral responsibility.

Originally posted by Starrman
My point is that those urges were put there by him. If LH's idea of the power of god is indeed enough to make you without your parents, is he not also responsible for your makeup? We're trying to ascertain if the biology is an intrinsic part of the process of free will or not.

You'll have to go a long way to prove that all urges (in their current state) are given us by God. As with the 'fear' which prompts a struggle for life inherent in all stable-minded people, all of our urges suffer from the same affliction which came upon creation at the Fall: degeneracy.

All of the urges Adam and the woman were given were meant to be enjoyed, and they were--- with gusto. However, the template of those urges which were passed onto us have all been impacted with the sin nature, as well. That inside agent makes all of our thoughts, urges, emotions and feelings suspect. Only when seen through the perspective of doctrine, i.e., the thinking of Christ, are we able to rightly think and thereby, rightly act.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You'll have to go a long way to prove that all urges (in their current state) are given us by God. As with the 'fear' which prompts a struggle for life inherent in all stable-minded people, all of our urges suffer from the same affliction which came upon creation at the Fall: degeneracy.

All of the urges Adam and the woman were given were meant to be e ...[text shortened]... octrine, i.e., the thinking of Christ, are we able to rightly think and thereby, rightly act.

So again I ask, how can you say that god created you, without acknowledging that he placed those urges there?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But that's the consequence of assuming that everything has a material or bio-chemical basis - it leaves us in a universe where free will simply doesn't exist. It's just a macro-level manifestation of atomic-level laws of physics. Even those things that we think are voluntary are not really so - they stem from the same physical laws that drive the invo ...[text shortened]...
Consider for a moment what this means for such things as morality and moral responsibility.

I agree, I think it entirely reasonable to exist in both the level of physical and energistic causality and also the simplicity of human life, wihtout abandoning the notion of control.

I am of the opinion that morals are purley a social construct and as such are equally transient.

Originally posted by Starrman
I agree, I think it entirely reasonable to exist in both the level of physical and energistic causality and also the simplicity of human life, wihtout abandoning the notion of control.

I am of the opinion that morals are purley a social construct and as such are equally transient.

In a materialistic view, "the simplicity of human life ... without abandoning the notion of control" is an illusion.

And it's not just that morality is a social construct - moral responsibility itself is meaningless. If you have no control whatsoever about what you feel, think or do, why should you be punished (or rewarded) for it? Why should we punish the sane person who commits a murder but let the insane person seek treatment?

Originally posted by Starrman
So again I ask, how can you say that god created you, without acknowledging that he placed those urges there?

I may have not been as clear as desired. Let's see if I can clear up what I hold to be the normative Christian view.

To begin with, God directly creates the soul of every human being who ever takes a breath on this planet, at the moment of birth (away from the womb). That soul is without defect.

That soul must have a home, and this is provided in the form of a biological body, created indirectly (through means of another agency). The mechanism God has provided is the procreating process, made possible by the agency of a man and a woman, incubated within the woman. Those agents are only able to 'create' biological life (not soul life), and the results of their efforts carries a sin nature, which is passed on by the man.

That sin nature taints every function of the human body, and influences the perfect soul, as well. Like the perfection of God's first direct creation, Adam's progeny are graced with the normal urges of life. Unlike Adam prior to the Fall, all normal urges have been subjected to perversion of varying degrees, again due to the influence of the genetically-imparted sin nature.

So while we are types of Adam, everything has been changed since the Fall--- and not in a good way. That urges are there and that those urges are tainted is not surprising. What is surprising is how God already had a system in place in order to combat even the most insidious of problems, i.e., the sin nature, and the solution is to think the thoughts of Christ.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In a materialistic view, "the simplicity of human life ... without abandoning the notion of control" is an illusion.

And it's not just that morality is a social construct - moral responsibility itself is meaningless. If you have no control whatsoever about what you feel, think or do, why should you be punished (or rewarded) for it? Why should we punish the sane person who commits a murder but let the insane person seek treatment?

Perhaps, perhaps not, but either way, it is an illusion which serves a purpose and is not as inconsistent (inmy opinion) as the notion that god granted free will.

If morality is a socially agreed contract, we punish people and reward others on the basis of success. What is good for the success of the group is deemed morally acceptable, what is deemed bad for the success of the group is morally unaceptable. So it is not meaningless.

The answer to your last question is an entirely different subject, I will be happy to pursue it in another thread if you like.

EDIT: Well perhaps not entirely different a subject, but we're getting well off topic already.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I may have not been as clear as desired. Let's see if I can clear up what I hold to be the normative Christian view.

To begin with, God directly creates the soul of every human being who ever takes a breath on this planet, at the moment of birth (away from the womb). That soul is without defect.

That soul must have a home, and this is provided in t ...[text shortened]... ous of problems, i.e., the sin nature, and the solution is to think the thoughts of Christ.

Why does god not remove the sin from the biological process? Why does he continue to waste perfect souls in imperfect bodies, effectively damning those souls?

Originally posted by Starrman
Perhaps, perhaps not, but either way, it is an illusion which serves a purpose and is not as inconsistent (inmy opinion) as the notion that god granted free will.

If morality is a socially agreed contract, we punish people and reward others on the basis of success. What is good for the success of the group is deemed morally acceptable, what is deemed ba ...[text shortened]... on is an entirely different subject, I will be happy to pursue it in another thread if you like.

You're setting the cart before the horse here. First you need to be clear whether free will exists or not before you consider the question of where it comes from. That way, you're proceeding by reason instead of relying on your emotions: "I feel X is not as inconsistent as Y". So, you'll need to set aside your prejudices (i.e. pre-judging) and rely on your reason - this is what I said earlier about having an open mind.

Besides, in a deterministic universe, society has no more choice about what behaviours it chooses (how can choice exist without free will?) to reward or punish than the people exhibiting those behaviours. So, what behaviours a society rewards or punishes really has nothing to do with whether that group/society will succeed or not - it relies entirely on the atomic-level laws of physics. Even assuming morality is a social construct, it has no meaning whatsoever if the construct itself has no power to affect human choice (which is what happens in the absence of free will).

Originally posted by Starrman
Why does god not remove the sin from the biological process? Why does he continue to waste perfect souls in imperfect bodies, effectively damning those souls?

First, "perfect" souls are not wasted in imperfect bodies - the soul and body form an integrated imperfect whole.

Second, as to why God chooses to allow imperfection is, quite honestly, a mystery. Some argue that it has to do with allowing human beings perfectly free wills - allowing the human race (as a whole) to enjoy the rewards and suffer the punishments of its actions. Others argue that the existence of imperfection allows certain goods to exist that would not exist otherwise - such as striving for perfection and working hard to achieve one's goal.

Third, original sin does not automatically damn people.