Brian Greene and Richard Dawkins Discuss God

(Aug 22, 2026 04:16 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:No, your intend to reconcile or not is not dependent upon you knowing their current status. Well, unless you see reconciliation as pure transactional, where you're only willing to do it if they are.

Yes it is. And the choice to either reconcile in the future or reject the father can only be sensibly made based on knowing if the father is still alive. There is simply no reason to plan that if we don't know if the father is alive. And no free choice is preserved by keeping you in ignorance of this fact.

So you have zero intent unless or until you know, for a fact, you can accomplish the intent? Wow, what an aimless, meandering life you must live.

Quote:

Quote:But this seems like a telling analogy to your view on God. You see it as purely transactional, which may be how you approach all relationships... possibly explaining the lack thereof.

Yes..all chosen relationships with any beings have to be based on the knowledge that they exist as well as the experience of them as real persons. Lacking that there is no basis for any relationship. God pretending he doesn't exist denies humans the ability to choose to have a relationship with him or not. Personally I would opt not to. It is inherently repugnant to me to worship any being or to obey them as my master and Lord. Hence him revealing himself to exist would enable my free choice on the matter.

Really? You'd knowingly and willing damn your soul to an eternity of suffering? @_@

Quote:

Quote:Whether you know (for sure)/believe or not has nothing to do with moral accountability... unless you just presume God doesn't exist without any positive evidence to that end. There's no rejection possible if you know for certain.

Yes it does. You cannot be held responsible for not having a relationship with someone you don't know exists. And yes rejection is absolutely possible as I explained the mere existence of a God would in no way force me to embrace him. Even Christians believe sinners will continue to reject Christ after he reveals his existence to them. It's the only way they can be held morally accountable for not following him. The free choice is only enabled by the knowledge that God exists, not by the ignorance of his existence.

You are aware of the concept of God, whether directly from individuals or the culture at large. You thus cannot claim you had no opportunity and can be held morally accountable for what you did with that knowledge. Witnessing miracles or plagues you can discount isn't direct revelation of God.

Quote:

Quote:Again, you can't reject the existence of the chair you sit in, unless you're delusional.

I can only reject the chair as something I must worship and serve by being shown it exists. In the same way there is no way for me to make the choice to follow God's will or reject it other than being shown for certain that he exists. Once again, freewill is based on knowledge, not on ignorance and iffy faith.

We're not talking about "worship and serve." We're talking about simple existence. You know the concept of God exists, and you choose whether you believe it real or not. You cannot say the same of the chair you sit in. You have no choice but to accept its reality, again, unless delusional. There is no choice in certainty, there is only choice in doubt.

Quote:So you have zero intent unless or until you know, for a fact, you can accomplish the intent? Wow, what an aimless, meandering life you must live.

I don't plan my life around people I don't even know are alive. Nobody does.

Quote:Really? You'd knowingly and willing damn your soul to an eternity of suffering?

Nope..wouldn't surrender my life to a torturing tyrant if that's what he was. Why would God punish me for making a free choice anyway? I thought he was all about free will.

Quote:You are aware of the concept of God, whether directly from individuals or the culture at large.

You can't be this stupid. I'm aware of all sorts of concepts of gods, devils, titans, dragons, centaurs, nymphs, etc. That has nothing to do with knowing they exist. I can no more be held accountable for denying the existence of one god over any other. They are all equally unevident and nowhere to be found.

Quote:We're not talking about "worship and serve." We're talking about simple existence. You know the concept of God exists, and you choose whether you believe it real or not.

A concept of God and that God actually existing are two separate things. If God really existed and cared for my allegiance, he'd take the time to show himself. The fact that he doesn't indicates to me he simply isn't there. It's not a choice to not believe in him. It's a choice to have no belief in him whatsoever until there is strong evidence he exists. Just like we do with everything else every day.

(Aug 22, 2026 05:55 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:So you have zero intent unless or until you know, for a fact, you can accomplish the intent? Wow, what an aimless, meandering life you must live.

I don't plan my life around people I don't even know are alive. Nobody does.

That wasn't the question.
Literacy is amazing!

Quote:

Quote:Really? You'd knowingly and willing damn your soul to an eternity of suffering?

Nope..wouldn't surrender my life to a torturing tyrant if that's what he was. Why would God punish me for making a free choice anyway? I thought he was all about free will.

That wasn't the question.
Literacy is amazing!

Quote:

Quote:You are aware of the concept of God, whether directly from individuals or the culture at large.

You can't be this stupid. I'm aware of all sorts of concepts of gods, devils, titans, dragons, centaurs, nymphs, etc. That has nothing to do with knowing they exist. I can no more be held accountable for denying the existence of one god over any other. They are all equally unevident and nowhere to be found.

If you know about the concept, you are free to choose whether you believe or not (just as you are with ghosts, UFOs, cryptids, etc.). You are the only one who can be held accountable for your own free choices. Yes, there are competing concepts, just as there are with many thing, but universally discounting them all is very different from just being uncertain.

Quote:

Quote:We're not talking about "worship and serve." We're talking about simple existence. You know the concept of God exists, and you choose whether you believe it real or not.

A concept of God and that God actually existing are two separate things. If God really existed and cared for my allegiance, he'd take the time to show himself. The fact that he doesn't indicates to me he simply isn't there. It's not a choice to not believe in him. It's a choice to have no belief in him whatsoever until there is strong evidence he exists. Just like we do with everything else every day.

God has shown you, you've just chosen to believe it wasn't God. You might call it synchronicity, collective consciousness, etc.. And you justify that by demanding God jump through your hoops, which are an ever-moving goalpost. You can't explain synchronicity in any scientifically verifiable way, but you've freely chosen to believe it has nothing to do with God.

(Aug 22, 2026 04:16 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:No, your intend to reconcile or not is not dependent upon you knowing their current status. Well, unless you see reconciliation as pure transactional, where you're only willing to do it if they are.

Yes it is. And the choice to either reconcile in the future or reject the father can only be sensibly made based on knowing if the father is still alive. There is simply no reason to plan that if we don't know if the father is alive. And no free choice is preserved by keeping you in ignorance of this fact.

Quote:But this seems like a telling analogy to your view on God. You see it as purely transactional, which may be how you approach all relationships... possibly explaining the lack thereof.

Yes..all chosen relationships with any beings have to be based on the knowledge that they exist as well as the experience of them as real persons. Lacking that there is no basis for any relationship. God pretending he doesn't exist denies humans the ability to choose to have a relationship with him or not. Personally I would opt not to. It is inherently repugnant to me to worship any being or to obey them as my master and Lord. Hence him revealing himself to exist would enable my free choice on the matter.

Quote:Whether you know (for sure)/believe or not has nothing to do with moral accountability... unless you just presume God doesn't exist without any positive evidence to that end. There's no rejection possible if you know for certain.

Yes it does. You cannot be held responsible for not having a relationship with someone you don't know exists. And yes rejection is absolutely possible as I explained the mere existence of a God would in no way force me to embrace him. Even Christians believe sinners will continue to reject Christ after he reveals his existence to them. It's the only way they can be held morally accountable for not following him. The free choice is only enabled by the knowledge that God exists, not by the ignorance of his existence.

Quote:Again, you can't reject the existence of the chair you sit in, unless you're delusional.

I can only reject the chair as something I must worship and serve by being shown it exists. In the same way there is no way for me to make the choice to follow God's will or reject it other than being shown for certain that he exists. Once again, freewill is based on knowledge, not on ignorance and iffy faith.

There is no shortage of atheists who, in their disbelief, are perfectly willing to shake their fists at God.

Quote:If you know about the concept, you are free to choose whether you believe or not (just as you are with ghosts, UFOs, cryptids, etc.).

There is no argument that the discovery of dragons or vampires or centaurs would violate free will. That's only claimed for God. Nobody can make a choice for or against God without him showing he exists. This is irrefutable.

Quote:God has shown you, you've just chosen to believe it wasn't God. You might call it synchronicity, collective consciousness, etc..

A God is not synchronicity or collective consciousness. It is a very specific kind of person and being who has infinite power and lots of arbitrary demands. No such being has ever turned up in my experience. Lots of vague fantasy-induced euphorias involving something called his holy spirit. But nothing near to what is claimed for such a being.

Quote:And you justify that by demanding God jump through your hoops, which are an ever-moving goalpost. You can't explain synchronicity in any scientifically verifiable way, but you've freely chosen to believe it has nothing to do with God.

No..I simply refuse to impute synchronicity to an ancient Hebrew storybook character who demands our worship while pretending to not exist. We don't explain mysteries by invoking other mysteries.

(Aug 22, 2026 08:19 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:If you know about the concept, you are free to choose whether you believe or not (just as you are with ghosts, UFOs, cryptids, etc.).

There is no argument that the discovery of dragons or vampires or centaurs would violate free will. That's only claimed for God. Nobody can make a choice for or against God without him showing he exists. This is irrefutable.

Dragons, vampires, etc. are like chairs; they have no impact on morality. Free will is inexorably linked to morality, in that it is the mechanism of accountability. Unless you're delusional or suicidal, certain knowledge of God would be coercive to your moral choices. Coercion is the opposite of free will, hence a violation of it.

You're still confused. You have no choice in what is certain. You can't deny that the chair you sit in exists. Or do you think you can? @_@ You only have a choice of things in doubt. Even just things as mundane as what you will eat for lunch. If you know, for certain, what you want, there is no real choice. It's only when there is some degree of indecision that you have a choice.

Quote:

Quote:God has shown you, you've just chosen to believe it wasn't God. You might call it synchronicity, collective consciousness, etc..

A God is not synchronicity or collective consciousness. It is a very specific kind of person and being who has infinite power and lots of arbitrary demands. No such being has ever turned up in my experience. Lots of vague fantasy-induced euphorias involving something called his holy spirit. But nothing near to what is claimed for such a being.

No one said God was synchronicity or collective consciousness. Those could be examples of how God acts in the world, not God itself.
Literacy is amazing!

Quote:

Quote:And you justify that by demanding God jump through your hoops, which are an ever-moving goalpost. You can't explain synchronicity in any scientifically verifiable way, but you've freely chosen to believe it has nothing to do with God.

No..I simply refuse to impute synchronicity to an ancient Hebrew storybook character who demands our worship while pretending to not exist. We don't explain mysteries by invoking other mysteries.

Yeah, that's not being able to explain synchronicity. You've chosen to believe it has nothing to do with God, and while continuing to make up strawmen... that people only believe because of a book and that God pretends anything (while being non-material).

Quote:Dragons, vampires, etc. are like chairs; they have no impact on morality. Free will is inexorably linked to morality, in that it is the mechanism of accountability.

Nobody can be expected to choose or reject God until they are shown for certain that he exists. Moral accountability depends on KNOWING the facts, not on keeping one in ignorance of them.

Quote:You only have a choice of things in doubt. Even just things as mundane as what you will eat for lunch. If you know, for certain, what you want, there is no real choice. It's only when there is some degree of indecision that you have a choice.

There is no choice where God pretends he doesn't exist. There would also be no choice if he revealed he existed. But that's not the choice God is demanding. God is demanding obedience and loyalty to him. And that is only possible by knowing for sure he exists. A choice made in ignorance or on faith is not a free choice.

Quote:No one said God was synchronicity or collective consciousness. Those could be examples of how God acts in the world, not God itself.

There's nothing logical in thinking meaningful coincidences are evidence for an ancient Hebrew literary character. They just are. Like poltergeists and precognition and cryptids and all sorts of paranormal phenomena.

Quote:Yeah, that's not being able to explain synchronicity. You've chosen to believe it has nothing to do with God

No. I've simply refused to form a belief that there is some omnipotent temperamental spook in the sky based on synchronicities. When there is evidence for such, I will form one. But not till then.

(Aug 22, 2026 10:04 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:Dragons, vampires, etc. are like chairs; they have no impact on morality. Free will is inexorably linked to morality, in that it is the mechanism of accountability.

Nobody can be expected to choose or reject God until they are shown for certain that he exists. Moral accountability depends on KNOWING the facts, not on keeping one in ignorance of them.

You really just can't comprehend the very simple fact that you have no choice in certainty. Moral accountability depends on behaving morally, without the known presence of a coercive being to sway you from what you would do otherwise. Even violating human law doesn't depend on knowing, as ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Quote:

Quote:You only have a choice of things in doubt. Even just things as mundane as what you will eat for lunch. If you know, for certain, what you want, there is no real choice. It's only when there is some degree of indecision that you have a choice.

There is no choice where God pretends he doesn't exist. There would also be no choice if he revealed he existed. But that's not the choice God is demanding. God is demanding obedience and loyalty to him. And that is only possible by knowing for sure he exists. A choice made in ignorance or on faith is not a free choice.

Well, at least you finally admit "There would also be no choice if he revealed he existed" after arguing the oppose for so long.

Quote:

Quote:No one said God was synchronicity or collective consciousness. Those could be examples of how God acts in the world, not God itself.

There's nothing logical in thinking meaningful coincidences are evidence for an ancient Hebrew literary character. They just are. Like poltergeists and precognition and cryptids and all sorts of paranormal phenomena.

Lame strawman.

Nobody chooses or doesn't choose to believe in something. It's totally based on their predisposition and interpretation of the evidence for it. Thus there can be no morality of believing in God because it isn't freely chosen. The choice to follow his will or not to IS a choice, but only a free one to the extent that one knows he exists.

(Aug 22, 2026 11:57 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Thus there can be no morality of believing in God because it isn't freely chosen. The choice to follow his will or not to IS a choice, but only a free one to the extent that one knows he exists.

No one said there was "morality of believing in God."
Literacy is amazing!

Believing in God affects moral behavior but the belief, itself, is not a moral act.
Again, a certainty in the existence of God would coerce moral behavior, violating free will.

Why won't you answer simple questions? Like, can you freely deny the chair you sit on exists?