3RU7AL

Chaos is simply the perception of disorder. This is not the same as saying something is random. It is impossible to prove that anything is truly random.

What appears to chaos can in fact be so grand in its order that the order that constitutes it can no longer be perceived.

Anton Webern's music might sound random to some, but his compositions tended to be an extreme example of order.

The mind itself is not subjective.

Senses are not subjective, your mind is subjective.  The senses are objective because your sensory organs don't have opinions.  They merely get stimulated and send signals.  So they're objective. 

To say the universe 'may' need some kind of builder isn't an illogical assumption to make.

Do you need a reason to believe that universe creating pixies do not exist? Do you neither believe nor disbelieve in leprechauns? I have a hunch that your default position in most undetermined cases is skepticism and that the only thing you "need a reason to believe doesn't exist" is in the case of god(s).

Under determinism, all beliefs that people accept would be the result of mindless forces and since mindless forces cannot rationally accept beliefs, our beliefs could not be rationally accepted. 

Yes vile in the extreme, isn't it? In fact the whole 36 Chapters of Numbers are pretty vile. In fact over 90% of the Old Testament is vile with war, murder, rape, slavery, incest, plagues, famine and executions by beheading. What's your point? By continually trying to contextualise the ancient Hebrew Old Testament - a book that even the Jews didn't, don't and never have recognised as ' their scripture ' with today's Islam in the 21st century is irrelevant. Continually trying to strike an  balance of violence between Christianity and Islam is a non starter too.  All apologists for Islam do this when they are all out of argument trying to defend the violence practiced and carried out against non believers by muslims in the 21st century on the instructions of their god and written in their book.  So you  keep those OT verses coming, throw as many as you like, but they are all irrelevant.Just to remind you; this thread is actually about me and if I am or am not  "christianophobic", because I have started more threads debunking, questioning and scrutinising Christianity, than I have Islam, yet no one seems to mind and never have accused me of being a christianophobe. Yet  when I talk about Islam  I am a bigoted, racist far right "islamophobe" who is no better than the KKK and a preacher of hate, fear & division. I haven't accused ALL muslims of having "serious mental issues" and  in dire need of psychiatric attention like someone here has done. I understand perfectly that the largest amount of the victims of islam are actually muslims.

By independent agency I mean a faculty of consciousness that has room to rationally accept beliefs. 

When I claimed that determinism could not be rationally accepted if it was indeed true, you said you disagreed with that claim. Please explain how determinstic chemical reactions are a force that can rationally accept beliefs.

Your objection to the argument is not clear to me. Beliefs, like determinism, could not be rationally accepted because the forces that would determine which beliefs are accepted are not rational. 

a choice to accept determinism would not and could not be rational.

it seems to more like an argument that choice does not exist rather than choice being rational or irrational.

And I believe it is a huge mistake to think that either requires a greater burden of proof when science itself has conclusively proven that it is impossible to account for all variables.

Or we truly have freewill.

it may be that philosophy is more useful for discovering errors than uncovering truths.

Has anything concrete ever been confirmed/denied or figured out do to any discussion of philosophy?

The law of justice in the USA is that a foreigner must come into the country legally. 

Would you say that "naive realism" comes with its own built in epistemology even if it is not recognized as such by the naive realist?

Would you say that one requires an e,listing philosophy or epistemology to recognize these rare apodictic truths?

That would seem to logically follow that if I am experiencing something then that experience exists but that would be the exception not the rule. Still point made.

Under determinism, all of our beliefs would be predetermined by chemical reactions and we would have zero control or influence over anything we think or do. 

I'd be surprised if anything 'anti-deterministic' was going on,

This does not mean that there is nothing that can be known with 100% certainty.

I don't disagree with you often but I would need at least one example or this time that may be the case.

I'm not interested in word-games that focus on whether free will is free or even if it is will.   I take free will to be only a name or label for our faculty to make choices.  The advantage of that is that it avoids getting bogged down in pointless semantics and turns the study of free will into a scientific study of a brain process.  I think we can get an understanding of free will by studying organisms of increasing omplexity and learning how they choose between optional strategies.  I expect that when we have done that, there will be no deep mystery about human free will.

If we know nothing with certainty then your statement that "we know nothing with certainty" isn't a statement of knowledge.

I am just wondering. Sometimes it seems we are all just running around in circles

i'd like to meet such a person because i don't understand the attraction of religion, especially in its fanatical forms.  it is self-evident that islam is open to hard-line interpretation - that is not open to dispute.   What concerns me is identifying the socio-political forces that seem to be strenthening the hand of the hard-liners and making the prospects of reform within islam retreat.

But that is not true is it. The teaching in the Christian New Testament for instance is entirely different. Tell me;  what does the Christ of the New Testament say about stoning? 

I perceive you have no justifiable argument because you attack me rather than the argument. 

You don't think that there is a difference between inspiration that comes from love of God and inspiration that comes from the love of this world?

We don't capitalize God because there is "only one". They are actually different words. They have different meanings. The word "God" capitalized means "The Ultimate Reality". Uncapitalized it means something else, some of which are even gods we acknowledge to have some reality to them.

When the artist wrote on the back of a cereal box, was God their inspiration or did they find their muse in cornflakes? When Shakespeare wrote his plays, was God his inspiration or human experience?

Certainly, you could say that God created all things, but we Orthodox don't even believe that God dictated the bible. It should be obvious that the personalities of the authors are present in the writings.

Muslims believe the Koran was dictated in this way. Maybe some protestants do too. We Orthodox would see that as a type of idolatry.

That said, we do revere scripture, but we also know what it is used for. It is, after all, a product of our church tradition and a part of it. It is our book(s).

The law of justice in the USA is that a foreigner must come into the country legally. 

Do you mean God or god?

They mean different things.

What do you mean by holy book?

There are two ways to interpret deism.

The first way is that you believe God exists.

The second way is that you believe God exists, created the universe, but is not present in the universe.

Which of these forms of deism are you refering to, and if neither, how would you describe deism?

Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

There is a distinct difference between saying "I am without God" and "I do not know of God" and "...…."

Better than the kool-aid you are drinking.

You cannot know what Someone else believes unless they share the information with you.

It is too complicated for a simple answer. I suggest studying it with guidance from The Church. 

The Civil Rights Act is not justified by hate.

According to the Civil Rights Act, Americans are "protected" from certain types of discrimination based on characteristics.  The protected group is "American".  

Ok?

Is this difficult for you to grasp?  You literally asked for a distinction.  This is part of the distinction.

You can still discriminate based on OTHER qualifications (no shirt, no shoes).

If the law protects everyone from hate and exclusion (based on their raceagesexcreed), then only the hateful and prejudiced will be punished by the law.

Whether that is the case or not, your judgement of character is not the basis for civil rights law.  The Civil Rights Act is not justified by hate.

The OP references a "religious freedom" bill that specifically formalizes marriage.  I clearly did not state that a union of any sort needs protection from the government.

So, in the OP, people who observe traditional marriage might be called a protected group.

According to the Civil Rights Act, Americans are "protected" from certain types of discrimination based on characteristics.  The protected group is "American". 

Actually, if everyone is protected who currently resides in the jurisdiction of the United States, there are no protected classes.

What exactly does someone who observes traditional marriage need protection FROM?

The government, apparantly

Civil Rights Act - https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/index.cfm

How exactly did you arrive at a complex which involves "protected classes"?  

In civil rights law, thank goodness, there are "types of discrimination".

Oh yeah, that would be awful.  Lets say everyone is a member of the protected class "sex", so discrimination could be absolutely forbidden since everyone who has a sex is completely protected from discrimination.  Such a law would be totalitarian, and essentially turn the private sector into a diverse assortment of public utilities.  I hate to think what else the people behind it have in store.