Baptising a Child

[Sultan85]

Most people baptise their children at a very young age. By doing this, aren't you deciding what your child should believe in, instead of leaving it to be his or her choice?
When children are so young, their brain is not developed to tackle such hard issues, that we as adults cannot even come to agreement with. When you sell this story to children, they will easily believe in it (which could be a possible explanation to why anyone is religious at all). When doing this, you are by definition, indoctrinating a defenseless child; which I would argue is psychological abuse.


Question: Are Baptising and teaching religious doctrine to children morally wrong? On that grounds that it interferes with his freedom to choose.

[LiamOS]

Nope, I only have to prove that I believe in it.

I believe in it.

There. Proven.

While that's good enough for you, it's not good enough to defend your argument in formal debate. As per the rules of the forum, I'll now ask you to substantiate your claim that humans have free will or to retract it.

True. However, they believe that it's the right thing, and in my own world view that counts until they discover that it isn't.

Even modern law recognizes intent in terms of assigning consequences to criminal activity, y'know.

So logically I'll not be going to hell, either?

Because you are making arguments regarding religion to me, specifically, that simply don't work with my belief system.

Because your belief system is assuming something which you are, as of yet at least, unable to demonstrate which should be demonstrable.

No, that you are arguing against the truth of the existance of God because YOU don't take free will as a given.

I don't believe that free will is consistent or capable of being consistent with the laws of physics, having attempted to reconcile it.
Also, I do not argue against the existence of a God, but I argue the claims for those which I perceive to be unfounded.

What in the world do you expect me to do, agree with you that God doesn't exist because a good God wouldn't punish people for doing what He created them to do?

I don't really expect anybody to agree with me, but if you're defining God as just, then that would logically follow.

Speakin' of, how do you define God?

Where do the laws of physics come in here?

The laws of physics by definition restrict what is possible. For example, if you're in London, you can't be in Amsterdam at the same time.(Unless your entire person is an undefined wave-function).

For instance, the man bound, gagged and blindfolded, about to be shot, STILL has options he can choose between: does he pray? What does he think about? Does he lock his knees? There is always a choice--until one is unconscious or dead, there is always a choice, no matter how limited the selection.

What controls his thought?

Indeed?

The Cosmological argument necessitates absolute causality to be entirely valid, and absolute causality means that God would be responsible in full for everything ever.

evasion is counterproductive, sir.

What was I evading?

Why should I be forced to prove free will? I simply say that I believe in it. You seem to be convinced that we don't have it...which is rather strange given your argument against God by using that belief...so you prove that we don't have free will.

I can if you give me an airtight definition of free-will.
I am not arguing against your God, but rather attempting to show that it is fundamentally inconsistent both internally and with the physical universe.

That's a lot of trouble to go through for this particular diet addition. Expensive, too.

Totally worth it.

Oddly enough, I think I did. "Good" = acts that produce positive results for others and oneself; "bad" = acts that result in harm to others or to oneself, either physically or culturally. I'm attempting to leave eternal consequences out of the mix, here.

What is a positive result?

In case you're not entirely familiar with the argument here, nobody has as of yet ever shown there to be an objective standard of 'good' actions.

Yep, here you are, absolutely convinced that asking such a question results in no answer. Please forgive me, but given my own experiences, I tend to think that this might be the result of...not knowing what you were listening for, or not trusting the answer; rather like that old joke about the minister who was shipwrecked, and prayed to God for rescue?

This would be called an Ad Hoc postulate.

I knew what I was looking for and I did try. That I failed to find a 'spiritual' answer is evidence of that and only that, but your assertion that there is one to find is quite simply wrong, as there are many people who try as hard or harder than I did and find nothing.

I'm sure you've heard this one; a rowboat comes by and the minister refuses the ride, saying that God was going to rescue him. Then a submarine comes by, and the minister says 'no thanks' to the captain there, too--and finally a helicopter comes out, and the minister refuses that ride, as well. He then, of course, dies. When he gets to the pearly gates, he's a little irritated; he demands of God "I prayed to you to rescue me, and you didn't!" God says: "I sent you a boat, a submarine and a helicopter; what more did you want?"

This is reminiscent of that man who jumped into that lion enclosure and said "God will save me, if he exists!" before getting his carotid severed.

In other words, perhaps you got your answer, but didn't trust the form of it. You certainly do not seem to trust anything but strict empirical data. That's a problem, in religious comminication with deity, I"ve found. Of course, I could be wrong, too. It wouldn't be the first time.

So God works in mysterious ways such that they are indistinguishable from his non-existence?

That's rather the point. How do you know when a truck is going to explode?

There'll be a supply of oxygen available, a heat source and a large amount of fuel. They will also be arranged in such a way to cause an explosion.

I'm not asking you to, y'know. I'm not asking you to convert, after all. I am simply telling you that you can't ask me to ignore evidence that I find convincing because YOU don't like it.

But I ask you to not present it as if it were valid evidence.

There is never NO evidence. There is only evidence that one person might accept...where another does not. Nobody ever comes to believe something out of thin air.

Forgive me. when I say no evidence, I mean no evidence other than would be expected statistically.

No assumption can reach that level of certainty, Aki.

The assumption 'I exist' does.

It's also a value judgment on the part of someone who doesn't like the reasons for making that assumption, and is thus rather a subjective descriptor.

Insofar as logical rules have been defined, it isn't.

...yes, I'd say that it's possible in the way that it's possible to prove God exists.

Would you say that our current knowledge is capable of attaining such a conclusion if applied correctly?

I believe that I wrote that sometimes people get fooled. I also believe that I wrote that it isn't easy.

Why do you not entertain the possibility of your being fooled as a valid explanation?

Good luck with that. It would be like me attempting to define flerdlegoops.

Sound is a compression wave of pressure which moves through a substance at a velocity dependant upon the density and temperature of the substance. It may have varying frequencies and amplitudes.

That's just off the top of my head.

And if, because the people involved had no way to sense the phenomenon caused by sound, there was no way to find, much less demonstrate, them?

You can feel sound. You can also see it.

where IS all the dark matter of the universe, anyway?

Distributed roughly as an inverse square from the centre of most galaxies with the more notable amounts in interstellar space.
Plenty of it in your hand, too.

Oh, I think it may be possible, eventually, but we aren't there yet. However, the reason I don't think anybody WILL anytime soon is because the answer "God did it" is considered to be the ultimate in unacceptable answers for anything. If there is found another explanation, no matter how improbable, it will be considered to be the better answer--even if it is the wrong one.

If that is the answer, then there will be no other valid answer unless God so cleverly decided to play with us.
Given what we know, it doesn't look like any sort of deity is at all necessary. If I was talking to you in 1900 though, I'd be a Deist.

As well, there is the problem of God being the Creator of all things; taking, as a temporary assumption, that He DID create the universe with all the laws that run it, how reasonable is it that He would have to do things that screw with the laws He invented in order to get anything at all done? It seems to me, at least, that even the most spectacular of miracles would have to abide by the laws of physics...because of course He IS the 'laws of physics." The question isn't how miracles break them, but rather how they demonstrate them.

At least, that's what I think. When I see what science discovers, my constant thought is; oh, wow, so THAT'S how He did this!

Most 'recorded miracles' quite clearly violate the laws of physics. Unless God built in weird exceptions which we've just completely missed(Not likely), then we probably have the laws pretty close.

I choose to accept that as a compliment to the agility and intelligence of my thinking, Aki.

Feel free to.

Really? And the cause HAS to be 'love,' rather than self aggrandizement, 'honor,' simple friendship, greed...or any number of other things that might prompt the same actions?

It could be marmalade.
If you ask a million men why they're doing it, and what you observe is consistent with this though, it's probably the truth.

Good luck. How does one find objective standards for this? The whole idea behind human art is not mechanical skill...you realize that, right? The fact that we still have artists after the invention of the camera proves that one.

Good cannot be objectively defined here, or in most places.

I"m asking the question, m'friend. Asking it back to me simply indicates that you are beginning to see the point.

My point is that while being capable of defining something, it's next to impossible to impose good or bad on it.

Truly? How do you know that for a fact?

They would have to be entirely identical for them to be equally loved.
One will be more annoying then the other. It's a law of nature.

What, women don't get a vote?

Nice.

Not to mention that argumentum ad numerum is a fallacy....

Not in this context. Unless you're defining beauty to be an absolute, it's a function of the human condition. As such, an increased sample renders more accuracy.

Ah, and that takes the wonder out of the world.

This reminds me of Patrick Kavenagh's poetry.

[dianaiad]

]

Nope, I only have to prove that I believe in it.

I believe in it.

There. Proven.

While that's good enough for you, it's not good enough to defend your argument in formal debate. As per the rules of the forum, I'll now ask you to substantiate your claim that humans have free will or to retract it.

That depends upon the purpose of the debate. Since I am not at all interested in proving that my beliefs are True,, and the topic of this conversation is not about proving that they are true--but rather about why it is, or is not, a good idea to teach one's child one's own religious beliefs--and baptize him or her, I fail to see why I should be required to prove that free will is 'true.,'

........especially since the first claim regarding the matter is yours. Since the first claim WAS yours (that we don't have free will,) then the burden of proof is also yours.

As well, we do have the problem of evidence. You will not accept anything but scientific and empirical evidence, and I freely admit that there isn't any. I believe in free will as a result of something quite other than empirical, scientific evidence--so where does that leave us?

.............well, it does NOT leave us with predestination proven, even if it also does not leave us with free will proven.

True. However, they believe that it's the right thing, and in my own world view that counts until they discover that it isn't.

Even modern law recognizes intent in terms of assigning consequences to criminal activity, y'know.

So logically I'll not be going to hell, either?

Probably not. Sorry. I'm sure you were looking forward to the trip--or at least to my giving you the directions. Of course, we are also running smack dab in to the LDS definition of what 'hell' actually is....

]Because you are making arguments regarding religion to me, specifically, that simply don't work with my belief system.

Because your belief system is assuming something which you are, as of yet at least, unable to demonstrate which should be demonstrable.

Aki...are you honestly attempting to tell me that because I cannot prove to you that my beliefs are true, that I must defend against arguments opposing beliefs I do not hold?

This by you is logical?

]No, that you are arguing against the truth of the existence of God because YOU don't take free will as a given.

I don't believe that free will is consistent or capable of being consistent with the laws of physics, having attempted to reconcile it.
Also, I do not argue against the existence of a God, but I argue the claims for those which I perceive to be unfounded.

I freely admit that I am not a physicist; there is a reason I'm an English major. However, I honestly do not understand how the laws of physics prove that free will does not exist. You will have to explain that one to me.

What in the world do you expect me to do, agree with you that God doesn't exist because a good God wouldn't punish people for doing what He created them to do?

I don't really expect anybody to agree with me, but if you're defining God as just, then that would logically follow.

Huh? A just God would not punish people for what HE forced them to do--but how would positing a God that honestly allows us free will..and is just..prove His non-existence?

[Speakin' of, how do you define God?

omnipotent. With freedom to choose when to use it, omniscient...when He chooses to do so, omnibenevolent...with a far longer view of things than we have...and just.

The important thing is this: I believe that He is my Father; not my puppet master, not my Potter..my Father, and my purpose here on earth is to grow up. In order to do that, we must have free will--we must be allowed to make our own mistakes and learn from them--and suffer the consequences of our own, and other people's, choices.

Where do the laws of physics come in here?

The laws of physics by definition restrict what is possible. For example, if you're in London, you can't be in Amsterdam at the same time.(Unless your entire person is an undefined wave-function).[/quote]
That is not the same thing as abrogating free will, Aki. As I mentioned, free will =/= omnipotence. It simply means the ability to choose between available options. As well, while physical law says that a human cannot flap her arms fast enough to fly, personal experience (as a five year old in a small room with two beds) tells me that physical law certainly doesn’t stop one from TRYING it. Free will does not, after all, guarantee success in achieving what one chooses to do; it simply means that one can think of the possibilities—and attempt it.

For instance, the man bound, gagged and blindfolded, about to be shot, STILL has options he can choose between: does he pray? What does he think about? Does he lock his knees? There is always a choice--until one is unconscious or dead, there is always a choice, no matter how limited the selection.

What controls his thought? [/quote] does it matter, if he is able to choose more than one avenue of thought?

Indeed?

The Cosmological argument necessitates absolute causality to be entirely valid, and absolute causality means that God would be responsible in full for everything ever.

Butterfly effect.
Of course, there is also the problem of the LDS view of creation in the first place….in actuality, we don’t use the Cosmological argument.

evasion is counterproductive, sir.

What was I evading?

Why should I be forced to prove free will? I simply say that I believe in it. You seem to be convinced that we don't have it...which is rather strange given your argument against God by using that belief...so you prove that we don't have free will.

I can if you give me an airtight definition of free-will.

Didn’t I do that? OK…it may not be good enough for you, but…free will is the ability to choose between the options physically available. It does NOT mean that one can do the physically impossible, though it does allow for the ability to try to accomplish the physically impossible. Free will does not mean, for instance, the ability to walk on air, or be two places at once, or sing soprano perfectly on key if one habitually sings a flat baritone. You are quite free to try it, though. It DOES mean that if you are walking into a store, you are quite free to choose what to buy, whether to steal it, or to write a bad check, or run over the old lady in the walker, or whatever options physically available to you. Your choices will, of course, alter the group of choices you have next, but there is always some choice available.
I am told that the threat, or even the certainty, of punishment for a certain action abrogates free will. It doesn’t; the very fact that a punishment is given for a certain action means, not only that one CAN perform that action, someone has done so. There is no need to threaten punishment for an action nobody is free to engage in.

I am not arguing against your God,

You certainly aren’t.

but rather attempting to show that it is fundamentally inconsistent both internally and with the universe.

How can you show that the God I believe in is ‘fundamentally inconsistent both internally and with the universe� if the God you are arguing against isn’t the one I believe in? I believe that the term for this is a strawman—or in this case, a ‘straw god.� I can even agree with you that the God you describe is ‘fundamentally inconsistent.’ Good thing that I don’t believe in that God, then, isn’t it?

That's a lot of trouble to go through for this particular diet addition. Expensive, too.

Totally worth it.

Oddly enough, I think I did. "Good" = acts that produce positive results for others and oneself; "bad" = acts that result in harm to others or to oneself, either physically or culturally. I'm attempting to leave eternal consequences out of the mix, here.

What is a positive result?

Well now, that’s a subjective question, isn’t it? What would you consider to be a ‘positive result?� One that, perhaps, makes you more comfortable, physically, emotionally and culturally, perhaps? Whereas a negative result would be one that does the opposite?

In case you're not entirely familiar with the argument here, nobody has as of yet ever shown there to be an objective standard of 'good' actions.

You haven’t been talking to many evolutionary anthropologists and sociologists, have you?

Yep, here you are, absolutely convinced that asking such a question results in no answer. Please forgive me, but given my own experiences, I tend to think that this might be the result of...not knowing what you were listening for, or not trusting the answer; rather like that old joke about the minister who was shipwrecked, and prayed to God for rescue?

This would be called an Ad Hoc postulate.

Sorry, no. This is not at all a ‘special purpose’ idea. I think that it’s pretty standard, actually. …and forgive me, but would you mind putting a ‘<snip> in when you redact stuff? I’m old…my short term memory is shot, and I need to be reminded that perhaps I wrote more than you quoted. This isn’t a criticism of your post; it’s a humble request.

I knew what I was looking for and I did try. That I failed to find a 'spiritual' answer is evidence of that and only that, but your assertion that there is one to find is quite simply wrong, as there are many people who try as hard or harder than I did and find nothing.

You did leave out quite a bit of what I wrote there, Aki. I didn’t JUST write that I thought you weren’t listening, y’know.

I'm sure you've heard this one; a rowboat comes by and the minister refuses the ride, saying that God was going to rescue him. Then a submarine comes by, and the minister says 'no thanks' to the captain there, too--and finally a helicopter comes out, and the minister refuses that ride, as well. He then, of course, dies. When he gets to the pearly gates, he's a little irritated; he demands of God "I prayed to you to rescue me, and you didn't!" God says: "I sent you a boat, a submarine and a helicopter; what more did you want?"

This is reminiscent of that man who jumped into that lion enclosure and said "God will save me, if he exists!" before getting his carotid severed.

Pretty much, yeah. God isn’t required to fix ‘stupid.’

In other words, perhaps you got your answer, but didn't trust the form of it. You certainly do not seem to trust anything but strict empirical data. That's a problem, in religious comminication with deity, I"ve found. Of course, I could be wrong, too. It wouldn't be the first time.

So God works in mysterious ways such that they are indistinguishable from his non-existence?

Only if one throws out anything that doesn’t fit a specific set of parameters.

That's rather the point. How do you know when a truck is going to explode?

There'll be a supply of oxygen available, a heat source and a large amount of fuel. They will also be arranged in such a way to cause an explosion.

Fine…and the average driver on a bridge is going to know that this specific car is about to hit that specific truck in a way that will cause an explosion that will collapse the bridge in this specific place and time…how, precisely?

I'm not asking you to, y'know. I'm not asking you to convert, after all. I am simply telling you that you can't ask me to ignore evidence that I find convincing because YOU don't like it.

But I ask you to not present it as if it were valid evidence.

First, what evidence have I presented, at all, in an attempt to prove anything to you? Second, any evidence is valid if it is the reason I believe something—and my purpose is to explain to you why I believe something. What—I’m supposed to justify my beliefs to you in order to continue in my own belief?
It would make equal sense for me to insist that you prove YOUR view of the world is True—to me—before you can continue to hold it yourself.

There is never NO evidence. There is only evidence that one person might accept...where another does not. Nobody ever comes to believe something out of thin air.

Forgive me. when I say no evidence, I mean no evidence other than would be expected statistically.

Moving the goal posts, there.

No assumption can reach that level of certainty, Aki.

The assumption 'I exist' does.

DOES it? I know of a man…shoot, I met him in England close to forty years ago, who was absolutely convinced that only he existed; that I was simply a manifestation of his existence, and that I sprang up out of his imagination, fully formed and with all my illusionary life baggage, at a point where he needed me to show up. I think of him from time to time, and wish, if his world view were accurate, that he would have given me better knees—and 20/20 vision. So. Does “I exist� reach that level at all times and conversations?

It's also a value judgment on the part of someone who doesn't like the reasons for making that assumption, and is thus rather a subjective descriptor.

Insofar as logical rules have been defined, it isn't.

...yes, I'd say that it's possible in the way that it's possible to prove God exists.

Would you say that our current knowledge is capable of attaining such a conclusion if applied correctly?

Nope. At least none that is within my knowledge base. As I mentioned, the idea ‘God’ is considered by the scientific community to be so far down the possibility list that green aliens from the asteroid belt would be a more acceptable explanation for an event—even if there is absolutely no evidence of aliens of any color—or of an asteroid belt, for that matter.

I believe that I wrote that sometimes people get fooled. I also believe that I wrote that it isn't easy.

Why do you not entertain the possibility of your being fooled as a valid explanation?

I do, actually. There is always that possibility. That’s why it’s faith, not knowledge. I’m certainly not afraid of the idea of ‘no God.’ At my age, the thought, for instance, of simply stopping when I die is not an uncomfortable one. It’s just that…nope, I still believe, it makes sense to me.

Good luck with that. It would be like me attempting to define flerdlegoops.

Sound is a compression wave of pressure which moves through a substance at a velocity dependant upon the density and temperature of the substance. It may have varying frequencies and amplitudes.

Which is purest gobbledegook if one has no way of appreciating the effects of that wave.

That's just off the top of my head.

And if, because the people involved had no way to sense the phenomenon caused by sound, there was no way to find, much less demonstrate, them?

You can feel sound. You can also see it.

I repeat; and if, because the people involved had no way to sense the phenomenon caused by sound (namely an audible tone that can be distinguished from other audible tones and other feelings and sights), there was no way to find, much less demonstrate, them? Certain creatures, I believe, experience sound as pressure on skin receptors—but ‘pressure’ is not an audible tone—or what we experience as sound. I have a deaf cousin; he dances—and uses the speakers of his stereo, face down on the wooden floor, to mark his timing. He doesn’t appreciate that the effect of air coming through the vocal chords and the vibrations of the bass speaker are really the same thing—because he doesn’t appreciate them the same way.

where IS all the dark matter of the universe, anyway?

Distributed roughly as an inverse square from the centre of most galaxies with the more notable amounts in interstellar space.
Plenty of it in your hand, too.

Oh, I think it may be possible, eventually, but we aren't there yet. However, the reason I don't think anybody WILL anytime soon is because the answer "God did it" is considered to be the ultimate in unacceptable answers for anything. If there is found another explanation, no matter how improbable, it will be considered to be the better answer--even if it is the wrong one.

If that is the answer, then there will be no other valid answer unless God so cleverly decided to play with us.

I believe that we’ll figure out which is which.

Given what we know, it doesn't look like any sort of deity is at all necessary. If I was talking to you in 1900 though, I'd be a Deist.

Why wouldn’t you be a Deist now?

As well, there is the problem of God being the Creator of all things; taking, as a temporary assumption, that He DID create the universe with all the laws that run it, how reasonable is it that He would have to do things that screw with the laws He invented in order to get anything at all done? It seems to me, at least, that even the most spectacular of miracles would have to abide by the laws of physics...because of course He IS the 'laws of physics." The question isn't how miracles break them, but rather how they demonstrate them.

At least, that's what I think. When I see what science discovers, my constant thought is; oh, wow, so THAT'S how He did this!

Most 'recorded miracles' quite clearly violate the laws of physics. Unless God built in weird exceptions which we've just completely missed(Not likely), then we probably have the laws pretty close.

Really? Shoot, I’ve seen documentaries that show how many, if not most, of the biblical miracles exhibit the laws of physics; just not the way the people of the time could ordinarily apply them. We also have the problem of witness perception. After all, the people who wrote about them weren’t modern physicists.

I choose to accept that as a compliment to the agility and intelligence of my thinking, Aki.

Feel free to.

Really? And the cause HAS to be 'love,' rather than self aggrandizement, 'honor,' simple friendship, greed...or any number of other things that might prompt the same actions?

It could be marmalade.

Could be.

If you ask a million men why they're doing it, and what you observe is consistent with this though, it's probably the truth.

Since when is truth subject to..well, subjective voting? You realize that referring to the “million men’ standard is actually supporting my point here, not yours?

Good luck. How does one find objective standards for this? The whole idea behind human art is not mechanical skill...you realize that, right? The fact that we still have artists after the invention of the camera proves that one.

Good cannot be objectively defined here, or in most places.

….so it doesn’t exist? The problem, of course, is that all of us humans live our lives as if this concept does indeed exist…and it has been a vital part of all cultures since humankind started gathering in groups. What’s your suggestion; that we as a species suddenly abandon the concept because we can’t prove its existence empirically?

I"m asking the question, m'friend. Asking it back to me simply indicates that you are beginning to see the point.

My point is that while being capable of defining something, it's next to impossible to impose good or bad on it.

Evidently not, since we all do.

Truly? How do you know that for a fact?

They would have to be entirely identical for them to be equally loved.

Sure of that, are you? Yet, you have no children. How can you know this? I will grant you that it is impossible to “appreciate’ all your children equally, or like them all exactly the same at all times, or be equally fair to them at all times; parents are human. However, ‘love’ is a little different than appreciation, or liking, or justice.

One will be more annoying then the other. It's a law of nature.

Of course, but that doesn’t mean one loves the annoying one less. One is just more annoyed.

What, women don't get a vote?

Nice.

Not to mention that argumentum ad numerum is a fallacy....

Not in this context. Unless you're defining beauty to be an absolute, it's a function of the human condition. As such, an increased sample renders more accuracy.

It is not I who talks in absolutes, Aki, but you.

Ah, and that takes the wonder out of the world.

This reminds me of Patrick Kavenagh's poetry.

Nice compliment.

[LiamOS]

That depends upon the purpose of the debate. Since I am not at all interested in proving that my beliefs are True,, and the topic of this conversation is not about proving that they are true--but rather about why it is, or is not, a good idea to teach one's child one's own religious beliefs--and baptize him or her, I fail to see why I should be required to prove that free will is 'true.,'

In our going off on a tangent, you made the inference that we had free will. I subsequently challenged that.

...especially since the first claim regarding the matter is yours. Since the first claim WAS yours (that we don't have free will,) then the burden of proof is also yours.

I stated that it is incompatible with physics that human thought is capable of overriding it.
If you'd like to further define free will, we could perhaps make a new thread for this discussion.

Aki...are you honestly attempting to tell me that because I cannot prove to you that my beliefs are true, that I must defend against arguments opposing beliefs I do not hold?

This by you is logical?

You're right; I apologise. I was also saying that if you believe something which should be easily and thoroughly demonstrable, you should perhaps reconsider it when it appears contradictory with reality.

I freely admit that I am not a physicist; there is a reason I'm an English major. However, I honestly do not understand how the laws of physics prove that free will does not exist. You will have to explain that one to me.

Due to the vague and ambiguous nature of free will, the laws of physics prove nothing with respect to it.
It is as far as I am aware, though, impossible to show that free will is even slightly possible within the bounds of physics.
If you decided to go to McDonnald's instead of Burger King, you've moved trillions upon trillions of particles thousands of meters in a small period of time. If this is not what would've happened, there is necessarily a force of some sort acting.
Given the magnitude of the force and the amount of decisions made, this force should be absolutely destroying all the results at RHIC and the LHC and they shoul be wildly inconsistent with theory and each other.

A just God would not punish people for what HE forced them to do--but how would positing a God that honestly allows us free will..and is just..prove His non-existence?

It wouldn't necessarily, but you'd have to wonder why he chose a universe in which free will is incapable of existing.

omnipotent. With freedom to choose when to use it, omniscient...when He chooses to do so, omnibenevolent...with a far longer view of things than we have...and just.

The important thing is this: I believe that He is my Father; not my puppet master, not my Potter..my Father, and my purpose here on earth is to grow up. In order to do that, we must have free will--we must be allowed to make our own mistakes and learn from them--and suffer the consequences of our own, and other people's, choices.

How do you define omniscience? Is God omnipresent?
This one'll be important.

That is not the same thing as abrogating free will, Aki. As I mentioned, free will =/= omnipotence. It simply means the ability to choose between available options. As well, while physical law says that a human cannot flap her arms fast enough to fly, personal experience (as a five year old in a small room with two beds) tells me that physical law certainly doesn’t stop one from TRYING it. Free will does not, after all, guarantee success in achieving what one chooses to do; it simply means that one can think of the possibilities—and attempt it.

At what point does it stop, though?
Let's say that you want to get in your car, but the neurons in your brain cause you to want to go back inside and watch television, and the atoms in your body are interacting in such a manner as to bring you inside in front of the television.

At what point does physics stop limiting?

Butterfly effect.
Of course, there is also the problem of the LDS view of creation in the first place….in actuality, we don’t use the Cosmological argument.

Seriously? Wow.

Ironically, that's the only argument for a deity I've ever heard that's had me consider the possibility.

free will is the ability to choose between the options physically available.

As I've said, there are no options freely available. At the levels of interaction that a human mind and body work on, matter is deterministic.

How can you show that the God I believe in is ‘fundamentally inconsistent both internally and with the universe�

But understanding exactly what attributes your God necessitates and what ad hoc postulates he brings. I then intend to show the inconsistencies in your God's necessity.

Well now, that’s a subjective question, isn’t it? What would you consider to be a ‘positive result?� One that, perhaps, makes you more comfortable, physically, emotionally and culturally, perhaps? Whereas a negative result would be one that does the opposite?

Exactly. However, if God's going to judge us, he'll have to have some absolutes, won't he?

You haven’t been talking to many evolutionary anthropologists and sociologists, have you?

I hang out in the physics building.

If you think they've shown an objectively good standard, please explain.

Sorry, no. This is not at all a ‘special purpose’ idea. I think that it’s pretty standard, actually. …and forgive me, but would you mind putting a ‘<snip> in when you redact stuff? I’m old…my short term memory is shot, and I need to be reminded that perhaps I wrote more than you quoted. This isn’t a criticism of your post; it’s a humble request.

Oh, no worries. This is a long post, so if you don't mind, I'll start from here down.

You did leave out quite a bit of what I wrote there, Aki. I didn’t JUST write that I thought you weren’t listening, y’know.

I know, but from my perspective the essence of that response remained, in that it was possible explanations for why I received no answer.
I tried and tried, and I don't think that what is really an expansion of "God works in mysterious ways" will cut it.

Pretty much, yeah. God isn’t required to fix ‘stupid.’

Do I hear natural selection?

Fine…and the average driver on a bridge is going to know that this specific car is about to hit that specific truck in a way that will cause an explosion that will collapse the bridge in this specific place and time…how, precisely?

If the car driver is keeping an eye on his own speed and the relative velocities of other cars with respect to him, he'll be able to determine when a collision is going to happen.

First, what evidence have I presented, at all, in an attempt to prove anything to you? Second, any evidence is valid if it is the reason I believe something—and my purpose is to explain to you why I believe something. What—I’m supposed to justify my beliefs to you in order to continue in my own belief?
It would make equal sense for me to insist that you prove YOUR view of the world is True—to me—before you can continue to hold it yourself.

You did make the assertion that God exists along with others, and you did, whether knowingly or otherwise, qualify personal experience as evidence.

You're welcome to challenge positive claims I make.

Moving the goal posts, there.

Sorry it comes off that way, but when I say no evidence that's precisely what I mean.

DOES it? I know of a man…shoot, I met him in England close to forty years ago, who was absolutely convinced that only he existed; that I was simply a manifestation of his existence, and that I sprang up out of his imagination, fully formed and with all my illusionary life baggage, at a point where he needed me to show up. I think of him from time to time, and wish, if his world view were accurate, that he would have given me better knees—and 20/20 vision. So. Does “I exist� reach that level at all times and conversations?

Quite frankly, his assumption was flawed, but the part in which he assumes he exists is self consistent and logical.

Nope. At least none that is within my knowledge base. As I mentioned, the idea ‘God’ is considered by the scientific community to be so far down the possibility list that green aliens from the asteroid belt would be a more acceptable explanation for an event—even if there is absolutely no evidence of aliens of any color—or of an asteroid belt, for that matter.

The idea of a deistic creator isn't as far down as personal Gods, but yeah, we'd rather look for something explanatory.

[...] I’m certainly not afraid of the idea of ‘no God.’ At my age, the thought, for instance, of simply stopping when I die is not an uncomfortable one. [...]

It's an uncomfortable one at any age. Could be much worse, though.

Which is purest gobbledegook if one has no way of appreciating the effects of that wave.

You can watch particles oscillate due to the wave and you can feel the wave.

I repeat; and if, because the people involved had no way to sense the phenomenon caused by sound (namely an audible tone that can be distinguished from other audible tones and other feelings and sights), there was no way to find, much less demonstrate, them? Certain creatures, I believe, experience sound as pressure on skin receptors—but ‘pressure’ is not an audible tone—or what we experience as sound. I have a deaf cousin; he dances—and uses the speakers of his stereo, face down on the wooden floor, to mark his timing. He doesn’t appreciate that the effect of air coming through the vocal chords and the vibrations of the bass speaker are really the same thing—because he doesn’t appreciate them the same way.

In the case of those animals, they can appreciate tone as differing frequencies with overtones. They merely perceive it differently.

Why wouldn’t you be a Deist now?

Because quantum electrodynamics absolutely destroys the assumption of causality, which the cosmological argument requires.

It is not I who talks in absolutes, Aki, but you.

If my knowledge on a particular subject is based in physics, chances are I'll talk like that.

Really? Shoot, I’ve seen documentaries that show how many, if not most, of the biblical miracles exhibit the laws of physics; just not the way the people of the time could ordinarily apply them. We also have the problem of witness perception. After all, the people who wrote about them weren’t modern physicists.

People who've been dead for 2000 years floating around doesn't fall within the parameters of any physical or biological laws.

Since when is truth subject to..well, subjective voting? You realize that referring to the “million men’ standard is actually supporting my point here, not yours?

In this case, attractiveness is necessarily a function of population unless one of us defines an absolute. If I'm not mistaken, you're arguing for moral absolutes.

….so it doesn’t exist? The problem, of course, is that all of us humans live our lives as if this concept does indeed exist…and it has been a vital part of all cultures since humankind started gathering in groups. What’s your suggestion; that we as a species suddenly abandon the concept because we can’t prove its existence empirically?

Not necessarily, I don't think people would follow me on that one.
But we've also lived as if the sun God would kill us if we did something wrong for a while. Humans are funny little things.

Evidently not, since we all do.

Objectively, of course.

Sure of that, are you? Yet, you have no children. How can you know this? I will grant you that it is impossible to “appreciate’ all your children equally, or like them all exactly the same at all times, or be equally fair to them at all times; parents are human. However, ‘love’ is a little different than appreciation, or liking, or justice.

What is love, then?

Nice compliment.

It was more an observation than a compliment, but I guess if you're a fan...

[Lux]

Why should it make more sense to baptize a person when they reach a certain age? During many periods throughout history, it was not uncommon for children (and infants) to die due to illness, hunger, etc.. Even today there remains the danger that unbaptized children may die without ever receiving baptism, and as a result will not enter Heaven.

I believe the custom is to baptize children when they are almost 1 year old.
Are you telling me that if a baby dies shortly after birth he/she can not enter Heaven? If so, why aren't baptisms done right after the baby is born? And what about aborted fetuses? Do you think a fetus is a live person? If so, if a fetus is not carried to full term, either accidentally or purposefully, will that baby go to Hell?

[TheBig Ticket]

I feel that it is wrong for parents to have their children baptized before their child can make his or her own decisions. However, if the parents feel that it's absolutely necessary for their child to go to Heaven then what does it matter? It's just a symbolic ritual anyway. It doesn't have to have any real impact on the child's life.

[Ann]

Why should it make more sense to baptize a person when they reach a certain age? During many periods throughout history, it was not uncommon for children (and infants) to die due to illness, hunger, etc.. Even today there remains the danger that unbaptized children may die without ever receiving baptism, and as a result will not enter Heaven.

I believe the custom is to baptize children when they are almost 1 year old.
Are you telling me that if a baby dies shortly after birth he/she can not enter Heaven? If so, why aren't baptisms done right after the baby is born? And what about aborted fetuses? Do you think a fetus is a live person? If so, if a fetus is not carried to full term, either accidentally or purposefully, will that baby go to Hell?

Jesus Christ says that no one can be saved without baptism. Because those unbaptized infants who die are in a state of original sin, they cannot enter Heaven, but descend into the part of Hell called the limbo of the infants. Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

[Lux]

Jesus Christ says that no one can be saved without baptism. Because those unbaptized infants who die are in a state of original sin, they cannot enter Heaven, but descend into the part of Hell called the limbo of the infants. Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

So are you planning on baptising your kids immediately after they are born?

I have to say that condemning a baby to eternal torture just for being born and not getting a chance to be baptized (for example dying right after birth) is the most utterly unfair and cruel thing I have heard lately. If that's really a teaching of the Catholic Church, I'm very glad I'm not a catholic.

[Darias]

Jesus Christ says that no one can be saved without baptism. Because those unbaptized infants who die are in a state of original sin, they cannot enter Heaven, but descend into the part of Hell called the limbo of the infants. Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

limbo of infants ?

I've never heard of it. Reminds me of the movie Inception.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Christians placed a greater priority on baptism of spirit than of water.

Do you actually think a bit of H2O is the difference between heaven and hell for an infant?

What kind of justice is that?

What of the Christians living in the desert where full body submersion is a luxury for those with little or no water?

Baptism is symbolic of a spiritual transformation. It is done after repentance. It has no power to save.

That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

I don't see any amendment requiring baptism in salvation. Do you? Shall we now conclude that infants and people who cannot speak and confess or even comprehend their own sin are all going to hell?

No of course not that's not only ignorant, it's illogical.

If infant baptism was required for salvation of infants, how come babies are not baptized in the Bible? It's because infant baptism is a doctrine and tradition developed well after Christ had left this earth.

Believe in it if you will, but don't condemn the innocent to hell because H20 failed to get to them in time.

[flitzerbiest]

Jesus Christ says that no one can be saved without baptism. Because those unbaptized infants who die are in a state of original sin, they cannot enter Heaven, but descend into the part of Hell called the limbo of the infants. Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Actually, we don't know:

1. Precisely what Jesus said about baptism, if anything.
2. Whether or not he was qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject.
3. Whether interpretations of his sayings on the matter are consistent with his understanding.
4. And so on...

Perhaps it would be better to say, "my understanding of Christ's teaching on baptism is that...". It's much less dubious ground.

All that said, I have two more comments:

1. The idea that God would deny heaven to a dead baby who was never baptized only makes God into a petty fiend.
2. It's only water...I agree with those that argue that infant baptism is without understanding or consent, but so is dressing up your kids in matching outfits for the first day of school. At worst it is demeaning, but essentially harmless.

[RobsScience]

First, let me point out that I was baptized as an infant, and I've turned out OK so far. So I see no moral problem with baptizing a child for the parent's peace of mind, but there is a line. That line is when the parents refuse to allow their child to be taught scientific theories incompatible with their views, when the child is shunned or even beaten for asking questions. Or when, worst of all, a child is told that they're going to suffer in hell for eternity! Seriously, how the hell (pun intended) can anybody justify that?

So to answer your question, as long as the parents value and respect their child's rights to ask questions, learn freely and to choose their own life, I have no quarrel with baptism.