Total posts: 3,192
-->
@PGA2.0
Once I've taken time to read through all the text, I'll respond.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And no one as yet has ever proven that an actual god, actually exists.
I have twice. Your rejection is irrelevant.
Therefore the debate is for the debates sake and the subject has become irrelevant.
The sake of this debate and its relevance is determined by both me and PGA2.0 since we're the ones having it.
Who can best elucidate the unexplainable.....Because there's no chance of resolving the unresolveable.
Who determined that there was no resolution? I argue the resolution is the acknowledgment that the mind is chief in determining "reality." You seek metaphysical objectivity; I don't because it's epsitemologically insignificant and irrational.
Stay with it boys. (Gender assumed).
Always do.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Then God is a personal being and separate from creation. Is God then monotheistic or pluralistic?
Explain your conclusion. And monotheism and pluralism are not attributes of God; they're descriptions of religion and philosophy.
I mean God is something outside of yourself who exists without you inventing Him/God, or existing just because you accept another subjective person's invention. He is real, not invented but actual, not a figment of your mind or a projection from another person's mind but actual regardless of your mind.
How do you know what exists outside of yourself if it is in fact outside of yourself? What is the difference between "actual" and "invented"?
So "dog" is the definition of a horse!!!
It can be should the description change. Descriptions aren't immutable.
Vocabulary gives the word meaning in a context, a combination of alphabetic symbols to describe something specific. Depending on how you use that word in context gives it specific meaning.
Then words don't have specific meanings. Only context does. And that was not your argument. Don't backpedal.
In context words convey specific mean or else you would not be able to understand me. You know when I say I'm green with envy I am usually speaking figuratively, not speaking of my physical being as being green. You know when I say the grass at my house is green I am usually speaking of the physical lawn at my house.
Don't backpedal. I presented you with a homonym, and you're now trying to revise your original argument to include for context. Context speaks more to my argument than it does to yours. You are arguing the sustenance of general descriptions based on a common understanding. And in doing so, you asserted that words have specific meanings. Now, you're stating that words have meanings specific to context? If that's the case, then this contradicts your previous citation of "Law of Identity," albeit fumbled, because words don't have specific meanings (i.e. "mine" being informed by a possessive, an explosive, or an excavation site for minerals.)
You are the one blurring the difference. You think that just because you can think it, then it makes it true. That is the message you convey throughout this dialogue. That, my friend, is the definition of a relativist. Relativism doesn't work successfully in the real world.
No. That is the definition of idealism.
You are blurring the difference between a house and a factory without first qualifying it by context.
You're projecting again. Your original argument renders context contradictory since words, as you put it, are subject to the law of identity. I don't have to qualify using a context because I'm not the one arguing any specific description. You are. The only necessary description to both a factory and a house is that they're buildings.
Sure. It is ONE of the distinctions that usually separate houses and factories. Some houses may qualify as a factory, and some factories qualify as a home (such as a factory ship in a whaling fleet), but it is not usual. People do not usually live or sleep at a factory with their families. Homes usually house families.
Once again, this is not about what people usually do. This is about description. You concurred with Stronn that my argument imputed a logical contradiction, the likes of which neither of you have substantiated. Are you willing to withdraw this allegation?
Can you find one that includes both? Take a standard dictionary, whichever you like, and prove your case. Prove that the definition of a house is the same as that of a factory.
A futile attempt at shifting the burden. Furthermore, my argument was never that the descriptions of a house and factory were the same.
I have qualified my meaning.
Irrelevant. It is still logically fallacious reasoning.
No, you have blurred the standard definitions found in dictionaries without qualification.
What is it that you're arguing? That words have meaning specific to context? Or that words should be restricted to their standard definitions? You can't have it both ways.
Your relativism say, "I call something what it is and that makes it what it is."
That's not relativism; that's idealism (perhaps a bit of solipsism as well.)
You just invent a god and say that god is the real God when that god does not comply to the real God if you do not believe it to be so.
You're projecting... again. I do not presume objectivity, and thus qualify God with descriptions which fallaciously ascribe objectivity--i.e. your gratuitous use of the term "real." I merely argue that God exists.
That is why I ask you for evidence that God is who you say God is.
What or who have I argued or said that God is?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You miss the point and are overthinking. I can demonstrate physicality without using YOUR mind, so your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical. And you can explain and show physicality without the existence of my mind, so physicality is not dependent on my mind thinking it.
Where did I mention that your demonstration necessitated the use of "my" mind. I challenged you to demonstrate and confirm physicality without the use of "your" mind. And while I can conceptualize notions of physicality independent of your mind, I cannot demonstrate physicality independent of my mind. Being able to communicate and rationalize a standard which, for lack of a better term, "unites" our subjective experiences doesn't inform an experience independent of our subjectivity--far from it. In other words, amassing subjective experiences and rationalizing a logical consistency doesn't create objectivity. [Consensus neither informs nor creates objectivity.] Because we are fundamentally subjects. One can never not be the subject of his or her experience.
I'm not "overthinking" it. I'm demonstrating an understanding of concepts like physicality, the values we ascribe them, and the role the mind plays in all of it.
If you did not exist, I could still show other mindful beings that it still hurts to get run over by a speeding bus or for me to hit another mindful being with a hammer, causing a contusion as a minimal consequence.
Once again, my nonexistence is irrational, just like that of any other. You're confusing death with nonexistence. And what is pain? What is a contusion or laceration even without your mind? What value do you ascribe the image of either? And how do you differentiate without the concept of differentiation, which is informed by your mind? How does one control for the difference between observation and conception?
You seem to be suggesting that nothing exists if your mind does not exist since your mind is the necessary mind for it to exist.
Seem is not an argument; I'm suggesting that any ontological analysis outside of the mind's information is epistemolgically insignificant.
Now, if no mind existed, there would be no one to know it existed, thus would it exist? If so, how did the physical make it possible for us thinking, conscious beings who are aware of its existence unless the physical universe is created in itself by a necessary mind who in turn creates other limited mindful beings?
The answer to this question is one which you must substantiate without appealing to your own incredulity and ignorance. You're creating a false dichotomy while skipping the steps on how it's necessary--as you allege--that a necessary mind creates other limited mindful beings. The floor is yours: substantiate.
That is what we continually find when we examine the universe. Mindful processes are found to be in operation that we discover, not invent. They existed before we discovered them.
What are these findings? And where can they be found?
Then why is your mind the necessary mind for the existence of the physical since you believe your mind is needed for there to be a physical reality?
Non sequitur. You are projecting and misusing a context of "objectivity" while I'm not. My mind is necessary, once again, for my own subjective experience--including any conceptualization of physicality, just as your mind is necessary for your subjective experience. Communicating a standard "between minds"--as far as one can tell--does not necessarily constitute an "objective" physical reality. Even if I were dead, it would not make your experience, or that of any other less subjective.
No, that is not true. Some mindful beings no longer exist or are non-functioning in this physical realm.
The error in your reasoning here is that even we were to entertain "the veracity of your second statement, my argument would still hold. Because if the mindful being "no longer existed," his or her mind would no longer exist. Thus, it would not "count" as part of "all minds." But this indulgence is irrational because neither you nor I can perceive or appreciate nonexistence.
Thus, not all minds are necessary for its physiology.
Whose "physiology"?
Yes, your ignorance of Him distorts who He is.
How?
Instead of worshiping the Creator, you worship a graven image, what you suppose God to be, not what He is.
I worship no one. I acknowledge and accept God's being; I do not worship it.
You manufacture God based on another subjective beings (Confucius) feelings of God.
I have not.
Three reasons: The law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles.
Demonstrate how all three are applicable to the argument for God's existence at the exclusion of all other gods.
He has what is necessary, a personal God, an omniscient God, an unchanging God, an eternal God, an omnipotent God, a benevolent God, a revealed God. He gives us verification.
Once again: what does that have to do with logical necessity?
How does Confucius, other than his subjective writings and musings about God reveal God?
Non sequitur. I never claimed Confucius wasn't subjective.
Yes, I argue against yours as found in Confucius, based on the biblical God's revelation. The biblical God who is knowable and has made Himself known is my reason.
Still doesn't register. I have not once excluded God. I haven't disputed God's existence. Are you arguing against the belief that God is not the only "god"? That's your prerogative, I suppose.
As I said before, each perception is different.
Redundant.
Redundant.My understanding of God is different than yours.
One of us is most definitely wrong since we understand God differently.
It is of no consequence how one's sees God. I've argued that God exists. This has little to do with how you or I "understand" God's description. Either way, it wouldn't change that God exists.
Confucius was a man. What makes him infallible or even correct about God?
Non sequitur. Never stated that he was "infallible."
Again, written by ONE man. Why should he be believed?
The number of men is not significant. And I don't argue that Confucius should be believed.
People believe all kinds of things that are not true. What are the internal pieces of evidence that what is said is true?
Such as? As for "internal" pieces of evidence, Confucius' relays are sufficient.
There you have it. I can't ask Confucius.
Obviously.
You presume. I'm asking for your evidence that your particular belief is a reasonable belief.
And I've given it to you. You reject it.
The Bible has many verifiable proofs; one of the most reasonable is prophecy. Another is the unity of the Bible. Each of the 66 writings written by around forty different authors, presents a typology of the Lord Jesus Christ. What is spoken of God in the OT is spoken of Jesus in the NT! There are at least eight NT writers that claim 1st-hand knowledge of witnessing Jesus and His resurrection.
And how does the number of authors or the number of "1st-hand witnesses" qualify or quantify its truth? You're imputing an ad numerum fallacy.
How many 1st-hand witnesses were there that Confucius could cite regarding Tien?
Doesn't matter. The number of 1st hand witnesses contrary to the popular belief cultivated by commonwealth legal systems doesn't necessarily inform truth.
The 66 writings I spoke of a few paragraphs ago.
66 writings is evidence of 66 writings. The number, once again, is insignificant.
What does that mean? Is Tien a person? If so, describe Tien's personality.
We were contrasting and comparing Tien and God, and you're asking "Is Tien a person"? I would presume you know that which I mean when I state that Tien is deity especially since in another response, you demonstrated an understanding.
Why? Because we are personal beings. How does personhood come from the impersonal? How does consciousness come from that which is devoid of it? How does agency come from something devoid of intent. You have to be mindful to have intent. If Tien is not personal, I want to know how personhood originates.
That is for you to answer rather than shift the burden to satisfy your appeals to ignorance and incredulity. That is, you must substantiate how personhood does not come from the impersonal; that consciousness does not come from that which is devoid of it; that agency does not come from that which is devoid of intent. The floor is yours, again.
Are you saying Tien is not a personal being? If so, your god difference from the biblical God. Thus, logically one of us is wrong in our perception of God and I say that it is you.
Once again, "my" doesn't register. I do not possess Tien. And I already know that you're arguing that "I'm wrong." This is based on an irrational presumption of objectivity which would necessitate the acquisition and processing of information independent of your subjective proclivities. And you've insinuated that consensus somehow remedies this. Subjective + Subjective = Subjective.
That means nothing. It is a tautology.
If you know it's tautological, then why are you still asking questions about it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
If only there were a beginning; a concept to which only finite minds adhere.
Are you suggesting that everything always was?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
"Uncaused cause" is the inconceivable beginning....Everything else is a succession of caused events.....One does because one is.
Then the notion, "everything [necessarily] has a cause," as I mentioned above, needs reworking. Or more to the point, everything has an independent cause needs reworking. I do not subscribe to the notion or argument that "self-caused" is incoherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
IFF) Each and every event is CAUSED (THEN) these causes produce a complex orchestra of events (which are also causes).The only alternative to this orchestra of events is the hypothetical UNCAUSED-CAUSE (de facto RANDOM CAUSE).And a hypothetical UNCAUSED-CAUSE would necessarily violate the CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
Then perhaps these notions--e.g. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY--need reworking if the response to mere scrutiny is that it's too complex an orchestra of events to delineate.
We don't need to know each and every specific cause for each and every observable event (which is just a tiny fraction of the ultimate event).
Actually we do. You cannot merely "bag and tag" under "physical" or any other set, if you don't understand its exact nature. One could argue that my brain is physical and my thoughts are the manifestation of complex physical phenomena, but if A (my brain and all physical phenomena associated with it) causes B (pulling a trigger) then B is as long as A is. So why am I not pulling a trigger right now? Why is pulling the trigger not reproducible and recurrent under the allegedly necessary condition A (one's brain)? Arguing something akin to "no matter what it is, it has to be physical" is not an answer; it's an assumption. Not a "bad" one, but no more than an assumption which does not serve as a counterfactual against free will.
We just need to recognize that an UNCAUSED-CAUSE is logically INCOHERENT.
Is an "uncaused-cause" the same as "self-caused"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What physical phenomenon causes which chemical phenomenon that causes which physiological phenomenon that causes which psychological phenomenon that produces the act of pulling a trigger? And why does this not recur ad infinitum?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Didn't the Pope denounce Trump multiple times publicly?
Yes. But public declarations are just that--for the "public." The pope espouses "liberal" philosophy and Trump serves as part of his Hegelian dialectic.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Interesting answer.Some would say conspiracy theory.Nonetheless I do run with the idea of establishment or an established hierarchy.....The U.K. being a prime example....Though based more on old European aristocratical power....Nonetheless old European power was Church and State...Predominately the Catholic Church.A Judaic influence in U.S. affairs is often proposed, but how do you reconcile Judaism and Catholicism and consequently how would the Pope end up at the top of the tree?
Let them say that it's a conspiracy theory. The Judaic presence in U.S. affairs isn't really "Judaic." It's Kabbalah (Jewish Mysticism.) And this ties with the pope because Catholicism isn't Christian or derivative of any ancient Hebraic or Abrahamic religion. It's Luciferianism. That is to say, it's an off-shoot of the Babylonian-Kemetic mysteries--just as the Kabbalah is. And the pope is the head Luciferian.
Interesting that you should mention JFK.....See above.
All presidents have been puppets, including JFK. If you're interested, read, "Camelot Lost," to get a scoop into the degenerate activities he was engaged in, and the circumstances which likely informed his death. His father Joe Kennedy was an up-jump bootlegger and the banking families weren't too keen on them. JFK was elected as a favor to his father. But once he alienated the CIA, the Mafia, and the International Banks, a target was placed on his throat and head. Contrary to the accepted narrative, JFK was not murdered by a "magic bullet," nor was he shot by Lee Harvey Oswald (who coincidentally happened to be a CIA operative.) He was murdered at the behest of Prescott and George H.W. Bush.) Jack Ruby who murdered Lee Harvey Oswald was a close and often seen associate of the Bush family. Not to mention, several eyewitness reports seeing gunmen at the grassy knoll.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
My mind is not necessary. The physical would still exist if I did not. It would just not be known by me.
You cannot confirm anything about your nonexistence because you do exist. You are making bald assertions based on assumptions. You "assume" that there's a physical without the mind.
All minds, yet if you did not exist I would still be aware of the physical, so your mind is not necessary for its existence.
You're entertaining a condition that is not logical. Once again: I do and will always exist; existence is not the same as survival.
If I did not exist, you would still be aware of the physical, so my mind is not necessary for its existence.
Yes, because my mind in my own experience is operative and necessary, just as yours is. This does not inform and independent existence outside of our minds' rationalization. The minute you share your experiences with me, my mind automatically transmutes it and conforms it to my perceptions. Our perceptions have facilitated a standardization of communication which is--and this is important--common, not independent.
It was here before either of us existed, so our minds are not necessary for its existence.
How have you confirmed this?
Yet without a necessary mind - the eternal God - would the physical universe exist?
Physical is a manifestation of perception. The mind rationalizes and informs perception. Any scrutiny outside the bounds of the mind is epistemologically insignificant.
Yet, there was a time when you did not.
Can you confirm this?
According to your profile, granting it is true, you were born 01 January 1930 (that makes you more of an antique than I am) so you had a beginning.
My sentience had a beginning. (And my profile is an exaggeration save my native language and country of origin.)
Did the universe exist before that time (just not to you)? If you say no, are you (meaning me) the only person in the universe and are your (am I) playing games with yourself (myself) out of shear loneliness?
Yes, it was just as much of an expression of the perceptions and mental faculties of those who preceded me. And my "loneliness" is none of your concern. We are discussing mind over matter, so to speak, not the emotions you allege I have.
But the distinction is whether either of our minds are necessary to experience the physical and I know that I would still experience it without you existing.
Non sequitur. No one has argued that I'm necessary for you to have an experience, albeit physical. It is being argued that the "mind" is necessary. And you have a mind.
I'm sure you believe the same about me.
I cannot perceive you without the use of my mind. Your existence ndependent of my subjective experience is insignificant as it concerns me. That is not to say, that it bears to no significance to you.
I'm not just asserting it. It is a logical impossibility. Some things are just illogical to think and thinking them makes no sense.I.e.,One apple plus one apply equals three apples.
How is it a logical impossibility? One plus one equals two so long as the descriptions of each number are defined to make that statement true. Change the definitions and it's no longer an impossibility. And words, numbers, and descriptions are, as you had put it earlier, "figments of the imagination." There are no material characteristics or chemical properties to numbers, so do they exist?
A "dog" is a word we use (it represents something) to describe a particular type of animal. When we speak of a dog we are not speaking at the same time of a cat. A=A. It has its own identity. A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat.Something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in reference to the same thing. It is either true or it is false. It is either true that it is raining outside my house at this minute or it is not true. It cannot be both true and false at the same time.Truth is not false.
Non sequitur.
If you think such things that go against the laws of logic, yes. The laws of logic are necessary for meaningful conversation.
It suffices to state that I'm intimately familiar with the rules of logic. Demonstrate which rules I'm breaking. And do so while not projecting your non sequiturs onto my arguments.
Oh yes, it is. I am not relying on my mind alone but on the mind of God, in as much as I understand His mind.
Hence your understanding of God's mind is subjective since you decided to qualify your understanding by prefacing it with, "in as much as..."
When I correctly think and interpret His communications I think in an objective manner.
No you are not. To your own admission, your understanding of his mind is limited by default.
I'm questioning whether you think you are all that exists?
And this question is based on a non-sequitur. Hence, I haven't answered it because it would presume that I'm making the argument you allege I'm making.
I'm trying to find out what you think.
No you're not. You're projecting what you think.
You are playing games
I do not play games in serious discussions.
You state things that seem illogical or at least inconsistent. You seem to think that your mind is necessary for the existence of the physical universe yet if you did not exist I would still perceive it.
Seem is not an argument; Yes my mind is necessary for and informs my subjective perception of the physical, just as your mind is necessary for and informs your subjective perception of the physical.
Again, it boils down to the question of if you did not exist would the universe still exist? I say that based on my experience it would. My parents are both dead, but the universe is still here. It did not depend on their existence for it to have being.
No, this is a question that you are projecting. Once again, you are making references to survival, not existence (i.e. your parents' death state.)
I can't without using my mind, but my mind is not necessary for its existence because whether I exist or not it would still be here. Whether I existed or not, words, language, maths would still be evident to those who still exist unless you think that you are the only one in existence, then I leave you to argue further with yourself.
You cannot perceive your own nonexistence. Nonexistence is imperceptible. You would know "nothing" because you'd be "nothing." You're only making assumptions about that which lies outside of your mind; you have not confirmed this; you have not controlled for it. You merely reference a commonality in communication (i.e. logic, math, science, etc.) as independent without demonstration. You're speaking to the "intersubjective," not the "objective."
I confirm it by experience. I see that it did not depend on the various people I know who have died. They were not necessary for the physical to exist. It exists apart from them. They were only necessary to experience it.
What experience? And how did you control for that experience independent of your own mind? Once again, death is not the same as non-existence.
Once you say you are necessary for the physical existence of the universe I take unbridge with that.
This is projection. Quote me verbatim.
If your mind did not exist would the universe still physically exist to other minds, or is your mind the only mind?
My mind is not the only mind; but this has no significance independent of my mind, because its mere notion is produced and informed by mind.
No, that is not the question. It is not about your subjective experience but about whether you believe the universe would exist for others if you did not.
Your questions have been based on projections and non sequiturs. I cannot perceive my own nonexistence, and thus I do not offer rationalizations premised on the aforestated because nonexistence is irrational.
Do you believe there are any others? Or is this all about you?
Yes, and yes.
And because you don't know Him you are wrong about Him.
How have I been wrong about him. Quote me verbatim.
Because every other god contradicts. To establish this all I would have to do is get you to describe your god and what you think that god is like.
So God's existence--or that of any god--is necessarily informed by his description?
I have already seen that the god you talk about is not the same God I believe in.
I've been talking about two gods, so to which one are you referring? Tien? Or God?
Thus, logically, one of us is wrong in our belief. That is a law of logic.
Making reference to the qualifier, "logically" does not mean you're employing logic.
It states that two contrary things cannot both be true at the same time concerning the same thing.
So I must ask again: why is it logically necessary that God exists to the exclusion of all others? How is the existence of God contrary to that of Tien's?
He meets the requirements of what is necessary to know about origins.
What are those requirements?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Who's really pulling the strings?
Spiritually: The Pope (The vicar of Lucifer)
Economically: The International Banking Families (Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs, etc.)
Militarily: The United States--i.e. The C.I.A. which is an extension of the pope's Jesuit order.
And yes, I argue this to be a chain of command. They all report to the pope.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I assert they are independent of our human minds. Can you show me a mind that is necessary for them to exist, a necessary mind?
Yes, your mind.
You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence?
All minds. And yes, my mind is necessary.
I say they will exist if you do not.
I do and will always exist. Existence is not the same as survival. Existence is the quintessential ontological expression; survival is a stall to corporeal harm or decay.
I will still perceive and experience the physical.
Not without your mind, thereby eliding the premise of my challenge.
So, how can one know? On the impossibility of the contrary. Some things are just plain illogical and irrational to think. They make no sense. They go against what coherent.
Do not simply assert that which you do not comprehend as incoherent/irrational. Demonstrate the incoherence/irrationality.
Even so, you are welcome to think such nonsense.
Have we come to this point where one is indulging "nonsense"? Suffices to say that there is something to be said for one who spouts "nonsense." There's also something to be said for someone to call that with which one disagrees "nonsense" especially when there's a lack of comprehension and counterfactual.
Your limited, subjective mind does not have what is necessary.
And your mind is not subjective, I presume?
I will argue that you are not having this conversation with yourself.
Non sequitur.
The inconsistency of your thinking is troubling to me who claims I exist apart from you
I extend my previous statement. You're also imputing a straw man argument.
No math, no logic - how so? God (in three Persons), is that necessary mindfulness that we originate from and owe our being. How is that irrational? From the living comes life. From conscious beings come other conscious beings. From the loving come other loving beings. From personal beings come other personal beings. From intelligent mindful beings come other intelligent, mindful beings. Do you ever witness otherwise?
I extend my previous statement.
What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality.
Then demonstrate physicality without the use of your mind; you can't use logic, science, math, language or words. I wish you luck.
So what I am saying is that this physicality is not something that depends on your mind or mine. They are not necessary for it. This same physicality would exist if either you or I did not,
Can you confirm that? How would you go about this confirmation if you have to both isolate and nullify the use of your mind?
or do you believe there is only you and you are having a conversation with yourself?
Non sequitur.
If so, I'll leave you to do that. In such a case, I would suggest you re-examine yourself. With such thinking, you are obviously capable of more than you give yourself credit for! Why not just materialize your heart's desire?
Both introspection and that for which I give myself "credit" are irrelevant.
What I am saying is which mind is necessary for physicality?
All minds.
Is it yours alone?
As it concerns my subjective experience, yes.
That is just my point, you don't know Him.
You're repeating what I just told you.
Why? Because logically there can only be one true and living God,
Why? Why is it logically necessary that God exists in exclusion to all others?
and I believe that God is the God revealed in the Bible.
What does that have to do with a logical necessity?
I state that based on many pieces of evidence and will gladly argue for this God against your belief. Is that sufficient?
Against my belief? I do not dispute the existence of God. (In fact, I on several occasions demonstrated the existence of God.) So against which "belief" would you argue?
How do you test for Tien's existence?
Perception.
What kind of proof has Tien left you that he/she/it actually exists?
The writings and teachings of Confucius.
What is that
and how do you verify it is true?
Through the fact that it was believed and is believed; that it was perceived and is perceived.
If your god is not a personal being, as you state, how did you get this "Mandate of Heaven and Confucius?" Did Confucius just invent it?
"My" God once again does not register. And you'd have to ask Confucius about the origin of the Mandate. I 'd presume Tien. It would be no less "invented" than the Bible, Torah, or Qu'ran.
Because I believe the evidence points to the Jewish Scriptures as related to the Christian Scriptures and speak of the same God, just in a greater revelation.
What is this evidence and what is its nature?
Really? What is Tien then? I will stop using the pronouns "he" or "she" and call Tien "it."
Tien is a deity.
How do you account for consciousness and personhood if Tien is not personal?
Why would one attribute consciousness and personhood to Tien or any other deity? Aren't you just projecting?
What is it, then?
God is God; Tien is Tien. "My" has nothing to do with it.
Are you a pantheist or panentheist then?
No.
It matters a lot. Is your god real (exists) or a figment of your imagination.
You still haven't answered my question. What do you mean by actual? Material or does the distinction not matter?
Do words have meaning or have you lost the law of identity to your vocabulary? (I.e., A=A)
Yes, words have meaning, and no, the law of identity doesn't apply to vocabulary.
Words convey a specific meaning.
No, they do not. A single word can have several meanings. Case in point: "mine." Tell me the meaning of this word. (Note: I did not provide context, so be cautious.)
They represent and are necessary for communication. Don't blur the difference between a house and a factory without qualifying what you mean. House =/= factory. House = house. Factory = factory.
Your proposition is sufficient as long as you substantiate it. Demonstrate that a House =/= Factory. That is, demonstrate that the description of a house excludes a factory, and vice versa.
A house is a living abode. We don't usually have our abode in factories. A house has a place to eat, a place to sleep and a place to s_ _ t. A factory does not usually have a place to sleep. A word that describes the place we sleep is called a bedroom when it is walled and separated from other areas. Yes, some people do not have such rooms. I speak of what is common.
Demonstrating a logical contradiction has nothing to do with your impressions. You're not asked to speak to that which is "common;" you're asked to speak to that which is descriptive. And thus far, you have not done this. You're merely projecting your opinion as description.
A factory does not usually have bedrooms. Houses usually do have bedrooms.
A bedroom is a place where people sleep. Do you really intend to extend this argument to its logical conclusion?
I have not argued a building called a house cannot ALSO act as a factory or visa versa. To call a house a factory would be adding to our normal understanding of what a factory is and such distinction needs to be qualified since what is meant is not in the standard meaning of the word factory, to call it a house. The definition of a house is not the same as that of a factory. To call the two the same needs qualification. If the BUILDING you call home also is being used as a factory I have no beef about that.
Both a house and a factory are buildings. That's a non-issue. A house can be and is used to produce goods. A factory can be used as a dwelling and/or place to sleep. Your projections of usual behavior has no bearing on that fact. And that's my point. If you're going to state that I've made a logical contradiction, then you're going to have to do more than just state that which you think is usually done. So, I'll make it simple: can you or can you not find a description of either a house or factory that precludes one from the other?
I appeal to common sense.
Yes, that would be another word for it, and that would still be logically fallacious reasoning.
What I am saying is don't blur the distinction that gives words meaning (in context) without qualifying what you mean.
I'm only "blurring" the distinctions you've projected, not that which is part of their (house and factory) descriptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's tautological.(IFF) physical events are governed solely by the "laws" of physics (THEN) all physical events have necessary and essential physical causes.(IFF) you are proposing some "non-physical" "force" interferes with the "laws" of physics (THEN) please present your best evidence of such a "force"
Pulling the trigger is a physical event that is preceded by necessary and essential physical causes.
What is the necessary and essential physical cause and why is this necessary and essential physical cause not repeating itself ad infinitum? Aren't we all pulling triggers, now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
These are 100% of the factors involved.Unless you can suggest something else?
I do not dispute their being factors in the discharge of the projectile. However, how is that pertinent to "pulling" the trigger?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your example answers your question.that would be a "yes".
Read what I asked again:
Is causality necessarily transitive?
The only way we establish the necessity of this transitivity is by establishing that the condition of the first premise is sine qua non. Where is dependency necessarily established?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
NO.there are only four forces in the universe: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear; I'm not aware of any evidence that anything happening in one's mind can influence those forces.
How is any of that pertinent to pulling a trigger?
Please explain.I don't understand your question.
Is causality necessarily transitive?
A causes B,
B causes C,
C causes D;
Therefore, A causes D?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Your statements are a little vague. I'm not grasping the significance of what you said here. Can you rephrase or expand on those thoughts? AYOU: "How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?"They exist without you thinking them. They are (or do you deny this?), and they are independent of your and my mind but still need mindfulness to know.
You assert that they are independent of the mind; how does one know this? How can one know this? In order to "know," you require the use of your mind; so then how does one "know" of that which is independent of one's mind? In order to do this, one would have to control (reduce variance) for that which you allege "is" independent of the influence, conceptions, rationalizations, and manipulations of one's mind. That is, to isolate and extract and observe how it behaves. Consequentially, the use of the mind would be prohibited. That means, no math; no science, no language, no logic. What's left? Irrationality.
So, without minds, there would be no physical objects? Is that what you are saying? How do you explain the universe before mindful beings? Was there such a thing?Even if your mind was not, there would still be these four physical objects (2+2) I keep bumping into or knocking over or feeling, and acknowledging with my mindful conception through consciousness.
Without the mind, physicality would be irrational. Even when considering somatosensation, and the process of interpreting information from stimuli, what would any of that be without conception and rationalization? One "feels something." What's the difference between feeling something and not feeling something? What if one couldn't verbalize that sensation? What if there was no language? Once again, in order to assert that there's something which "is" independent of one's mind, one would have to control for independence.
Then I question whether you know the Christian God.
I do not know the Christian God; I know of the Christian God. And why are you qualifying God with the adjective, "Christian"?
How well do you think your Confusism stacks up against such a God?
Fairly well. I don't see how Tien is any less existent than God.
That one and only God has revealed to humanity in two ways, through what was made and via written revelation. How does your god of Confusism do that?
Through the Mandate of Heaven and Confucius.
The Judeo-Christian has confirmed Himself in various ways and confirms it with our spirits via His Spirit. There is a way to know and reconcile with this God according to this word, and that is through His Son.
So then, once again, why do you qualify God with the description "Judeo-Christian?"
Is [your] god a personal god?
Tien is not a personal God.
Who or what is your god?
"My" God does not register. God is not possessed.
Are you it.
I don't practice suitheism.
is [your] god an actual being?
What do you mean by "actual"? Material? Or does the distinction not matter?
A factory is a large scale operation in comparison. You may grow a few tomatoes, and even sell them, but once you go into larger-scale production in which goods are produced for commercial use and have an automated production line you are entering the factory atmosphere. People do not usually live in factories. They work there. The HOME and factory are usually separate abodes, although the two can be in the same building
We're not discussing "usual behavior" since "usual behavior" doesn't qualify their descriptions.
Usually, a description of a factory would not include bedrooms, sometimes exclude a kitchen, a den with fireplace, and family members.
Where in your cited description of a house does it state that a house necessitates a bedroom, kitchen, or den?
So while there are similarities the two very seldom match the qualifications of both.
What qualifications? Once again, point out to me the exact description that precludes a house from being a factory, and vice versa.
Does anyone else here believe that a factory is the same as a house???
You're appealing to incredulity. We're discussing whether the descriptions of a house and factory, and the argument that both can be the same, demonstrates a contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's easy for you to IMAGINE acting differently, but you cannot go back in time to test that hypothesis.
One need not go back in time; one need only indulge retrospect and analyze the prospects and possibilities. And since one "could've acted otherwise" is a fragmented conditional statement, testing the hypothesis is unnecessary. Inductive reasoning suffices. So, for example, it suffices to state that had one not pulled the trigger, the projectile known as a bullet could not have been discharged from the firearm, at the moment of one's possession, resulting in that particular method of bodily harm. So then, is it possible to make a decision between pulling and not pulling the trigger, thereby presenting two courses of action? Yes. So then the statement, "one could've acted otherwise," even when made in retrospect, stands especially in that context.
With the exact same inputs, you will get the exact same outputs.Anything else violates cause-and-effect.
Except we're not scrutinizing that which "will" happen or "would've" happened. We're scrutinizing that which "could've" happened. But I must ask again: is cause-and-effect necessarily transitive?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Would it be fairer to say "true under the common understanding of the words "two" and "four"', then?
Yes. However, it suffices to say that's logically the case. That's not necessarily empirical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well traditionally, we (quite feebly) attempt to weigh QUALIA.We call this "motive", we call this "circumstance".Was the shooter legitimately afraid for their life?Did the shooter intend to kill the victim?Did the weapon malfunction?
That is far more a reflection of the moral--well, "legal"--framework than it is of free will. I do not contest that the "moral" frameworks of western commonwealths are inconsistent.
How do you demonstrate that any individual "could have acted otherwise"?Do you have a time-machine?We find it easy to IMAGINE that someone "could have acted otherwise", but it is IMPOSSIBLE TO "PROVE" SUCH A CLAIM.It is therefore unfalsifiable, and is therefore, an appeal to ignorance.
By scrutinizing all possible courses when confronting an event. Case in point: I'm wearing a blue shirt. I could've worn a red or grey one. I could've worn no shirt at all. Hence, I could've acted otherwise. Now, when it comes to the involvement of firearms, there are at least two possible courses of action: pull the trigger or don't pull the trigger--factors notwithstanding. Perhaps, the claim would be better made if we exchanged "could" for "would." Now if we were to state one "would have acted otherwise," that would be unverifiable.
Because, according to cause-and-effect, the collective causes, spawning from that individual's childhood, and their parent's childhood, and their grandparent's childhood, lead to a series of events that includes the shooting.To claim otherwise violates cause-and-effect.
So cause-and-effect is necessarily transitive?
Because cause-and-effect is empirically verifiable and logically demonstrable.The parameters denote our epistemological limits.
You were able to empirically verify your own beginning at the dawn of time, as well as prospectively observe your end at the heat death of the cosmos?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Not without changing the definitions of "2" and "4," no. 2+2=4 is demonstrably and irrevocably true.
If the veracity of the statement is contingent on its definition, then 2+2=4 is not "irrevocably" true.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I like to point out that these mathematical equations (proofs) that you speak of that describe the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, speed of light, etc., are principles we discover, not what we invent. They operate apart from any one of us thinking them. They are intelligible, suggesting a necessary mind (since our minds are not necessary for these laws to exist) has put these laws into place. So, we have a more plausible explanation than the materialist who is operating on the principle of blind, indifferent, chance happenstance.
Can one control for this? That is isolate that which we perceive from discovery and rationalize through conceptualization and that which which we allege is independent from the former? How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?
I think I understand what you are saying and if so I agree wholeheartedly and like what you are saying! God is Spirit and thus not physical in nature. Thus, it is with our minds that we contemplate and know Him. The mathematics we use to describe the laws of nature are also mental. We use our minds to conceptualize these laws. So, the materialist is using a double standard. He/she is working beyond what can be proven by the pure physical. The concept of twoness is not tangible, nor are the principles of mathematics we use to describe the physical workings of the universe. So, once again the materialist is inconsistent and hypocritical in his/her thinking and borrows from another worldview that does make sense.
Not just used to described but to inform (i.e. mathematics and the physical laws of nature.) Other than that, you hit the nail right on the head.
But are you saying that two physical objects plus two physical objects can equal something other than four physical objects?
Yes. Even if one argues that we replace the forms that one alleges "identify," what defines it being four physical objects? Our descriptions. Our conceptualization.
But do we derive 2+2=4 from the mind of God as our source?
I don't presume to have access to God's mind.
The definition of a house and a factory are not the same. Thus, there is a contradiction in terms unless further explanation distinguishes and contains a combination of the two definitions within the one structure.House - A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a familyFactory - A building or group of buildings in which goods are manufactured; a plant.
Look at those descriptions again. Neither excludes the other. A house is actually a place where goods are manufactured (e.g. food, clean clothes, etc.) And what do you see in the description of a factory that would exclude a family from living in it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
f the person who pulled the trigger was held 100% (morally) responsible (to the exclusion of all other factors) for the death of another individual.
How is a person who pulls a trigger resulting in the death of another individual not held completely responsible? What are these factors that you believe are being excluded?
"freewill" is primarily used to argue that a human "could have acted otherwise".This claim is "unfalsifiable" (empirically, but not logically) and is therefore a naked appeal to ignorance.This claim is also a gross violation of cause-and-effect.
Let's entertain the claim that it's primarily used to argue that one "could have acted otherwise," how does that impute an appeal to ignorance? Are you alleging that the claim's lack of falsifiability is being used to inform its veracity? Who has done this?
And, how is it a gross violation of cause and effect?
"I" begins with the dawn of time.
"I" ends with the heat death of the cosmos.
How do you know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This claim is provably false x2
Please supply this proof of falsehood x2.
Do you also agree that "freewill" is simply a FEELING we experience (QUALIA)?
Yes.
Do you also agree that "freewill" is logically incoherent (if defined as a violation of cause-and-effect)?
How can free will be defined as a violation of cause-and-effect?
It's supposed to make an individual "morally responsible for their actions".It's specifically tailored to take away any "excuses" a person might present in order to argue that they are merely a collection of ever-changing reactions to their environment.It traps people into disproportionately "blaming" and "hating" any proximate, apparent human "cause" to the exclusion of all other factors.That's the ONLY reason we've been infected with the concept in the first place.
"Human-cause"? What would be an example?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
EXISTENCE demands empirical verifiability and or LOGICAL NECESSITY.
Logical necessity for what? What does free-will posit which requires confirmation outside its subject?
Are you asserting that "freewill" is QUALIA?
Of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Without some sort of quantification, how can they claim that "freewill" EXISTS?
By claiming that it exists.
What is the evidence for "freewill"?
Evidence isn't required. How does one demonstrate to another an intrinsic quality? For example, if I were to ask you: prove that you're intelligent, how would you go about doing this? I can administer to you an "I.Q." Test but would that really gauge your intelligence, or testing discipline? What if the test is nothing more than a gimmick (and yes I would argue that the "I.Q." is nothing more than a gimmick) what then would you have "quantified"?
What is the central premise, what is the PRIMARY AXIOM?
That's the crux of the matter.
I am I.
I begin with I.
I end with I.
How does "freewill" violate (or comply with) CAUSE AND EFFECT?
Elaborate further: are you asking what causes free will? Or in what capacity is one the cause of who they are and their decisions?
How can you tell if a child, or a dog, or a cat, or a car has "freewill"?
If they tell me, I'd be able to tell. My being able to tell however doesn't qualify their capacity for free will.
As far as I can tell, "freewill" is just a FEELING you get when YOU make a "decision".
Given the nature of this discussion, I understand it begs for more latitude. But I ask: what is "free-will" supposed to be other than a "feeling"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
That's an astute observation which undermines their--as in materialists--standards. I've posited before that everything we perceive is contingent on our minds--especially our conceptualizations and our rationalizations. So then what is the epistemological significance in making a distinction between the immaterial and that which materialists allege is material? Particularly when physical laws (allegedly material) are DEFINED by mathematical proof (immaterial)?
So when an atheist attempts to trivialize God by asserting something to the effect that "God exists only in the mind," it's replete with double standards because the physical science off which they base their contentions is defined by that which, one can easily argue, "exists only in the mind" with the use of a standard that is identical to their own.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The framework mitigates the potential harm by simultaneously limiting and also protecting the influence of individual members.
How does the framework sustain its capacity to limit without the participation of those self-interested babies? Essentially I'm asking: aren't the rules/standards sustained by those who follow them?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The underlined is puzzling to me. I understand forms to be conceptual. Would you agree? Thus, they are intangible, non-empirical, non-physical.So, without people, are there still these forms? Does 2+2 still equal 4, or does that now become a logical impossibility?
When I state that forms are meaningless without people, yes, I'm stating that it becomes irrational. According to materialist standard, numbers have no material or chemical properties. Therefore, they would be nonexistent; yet applied mathematics is credited for the substantiation of physical laws. How then can the immaterial/nonexistent interact with the existent, let alone inform it?
IOW's,1) are you saying that 2+2=4 is not an eternal truth, 2+2 could equal something other than 4, perhaps in another possible universe,2) that before humanity began that equation was not a logical necessity, therefore twoness did not exist, thus there were no forms since forms require meaning,3) there was still a necessary personal being, God, making it necessarily true?
1. Two plus two can equal something other than four in this universe. Arithmetical standards need only be manipulated.
2. I suppose one could make that conclusion based off that which I stated. But I wouldn't because I don't presume to be an observer of nothingness.
3. Did God make two plus two equal four true? No.
While I agree there is a logical contradiction if this is an either-or situation when no third possibility, such as an "and" exists. The third possibility can happen in this scenario with a house and factor combined at the same place (i.e., a person has an assembly line in his basement or garage). Thus, the building functions as a house and factory for the occupant.
There is no contradiction. No description of a house excludes it from being a factory, and no description of a factory excludes it from being a house.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Constitutional Holacracy has logic built into the framework itself.
What logic is that?
It's designed from the ground-up to mitigate mob rule as well as preventing power accumulation by a single member.
What good is the framework if those who participate are self-interested babies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i hesitate to make broad statements here, but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement. the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance.
This is a non sequitur. Free will adherents don't attempt to quantify and juxtapose both internal and "external" influences. Because the argument for free will has nothing to do with quantity--any more than the arguments which posit that the self is caused by previous influences. Can you quantify that? Arguing for free will amounts to--no pun intended--"I am responsible for my decisions." One could even go further and state, "I am both responsible and the cause of me." So then what use would there be in proposing a measure? If one tells another, for example, that he/she loves them, should that be taken at face value, or do we measure the secretions of oxytocin and the amount of time the two interacted? And how far does one extend the ecological inference fallacy when projecting their subjective observations of many onto an individual subject about his or her subjective experience?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because every "self" is a complex collection of causes and effects.
How?
These causes have their origins outside the "self" and the effects have ramifications beyond the "self"
Have you confirmed this yourself about your "self?"
Certainly the "self" changes over time, but none of the causes originate within the "self".What are you? - 6 minutes,
Does the video you reference inform your argument? From what I've discerned while watching, it questions the attribution of the self (i.e. cells, DNA, etc.) Does it necessarily inform that the self isn't causa sui?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@simplybeourselves
So what is the supposed question begged, then?
What is the way that we are?
If you accept the premise then it simply doesn't matter what the way we are is. If we do what we do because of the way we are then we can't make ourselves the way we are because we can't get back behind ourselves.
Neither you nor Strawson has substantiated the reason that "we can't make ourselves the way we are." You're merely positing a "spurious a priori" under the presumption that the manifestation of the self is linear. As of now, at least as far as this discussion is concerned, it is nothing more than a claim. Provide substance to your posit.
A strong sort of moral responsibility is excluded because a strong sort of free will is excluded. In order to have ultimate moral responsibility and Libertarian Free Will we would have to get back behind X but we can't get back behind X. X's nature is irrelevant because the point is that *whatever X is* we would have to get back behind it in order to have such a kind of free will and responsiiblity but we can't.
This is redundant. You merely repeated your argument as the reason for exclusion. Why is a "strong sort" of free will necessary for moral responsibility? Why do we have to get back behind X to assume moral responsibility? Why can't we get back behind X? Why do we have to get behind X in order to have free will? Don't merely assert; substantiate.
The argument itself is clearly substantiated by the fact that an infinite regress happens whereby we can never get back behind ourselves to make ourselves the way we are. You just keep asking an irrelevant question when you're asking me to substantiate what our nature actually is and asking me "What is the way we are?". It's not relevant.
Once again, redundant. You continue to repeat the argument as if the argument itself substantiates the argument.
You would have to substantiate the relevance of that question first but you can't substantiate it because we can't get back behind ourselves to make ourselves the way we are *regardless of what the way we are is*.
A question is an inquiry. It doesn't require substantiation. Its relevance is substantiated because it directly inquires into the content of the premise. I'm not asking you about cotton candy. I'm asking you to elaborate on the nature of the way that we are to explore and either confirm or reject the validity of the third premise.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whatever nature we happen to have and everything to do with the fact that we can't get back behind that nature *whatever it is* to make it.
Why not? And why must we get back behind that nature? Why does an "infinite regress" as you put restrict one's capacity to be responsible for the way one is? At what point does the self, or the "way that we are," begin? And if there's an infinite regression, would that not suggest that the way one is has always been?
We can't be the ultimate *cause o*f our nature, *regardless* of what our nature is, because it leads to an infinite regress where we would never be able to ultimately cause our nature ... and asking "What is our nature?" has no relevance.
Substantiate. (And don't repeat your argument--I know what it is already.)
I'm going to drop the whole Schopenhauer thing because it's not important and you have conceded that it resembles Strawson's position in some ways which is all I thought to begin with anyway.
I never conceded that to you. This is what I stated:
Yes, they can agree on certain points, but that is not the same as resembling a position. Schopenhauer would be a proponent of free will for the reason I mentioned. I don't disagree with all of Strawson's points either, but that doesn't mean that my positions reflects his.
But if you intend to drop the argument, then I have no objections.
Also, we are never going to agree if you think that Schopenhauer is a proponent of free will because that is just absolutely false. It's not a matter of what he 'would be' for the reason you personally think. It's actually the case that he *was* famously well known for being very clearly an *opponent of* free will.
My reasons are no more "personal" than yours. Examine my statement again:
Schopenhauer believed that one could reorient their perspective on the nature of experience, rather than extend the prejudices of culture.
Where did I inject my personal thoughts?
What's more, even if you could muster up an argument for why Schopenahauer was a *compatabilist* ... that would just be yet another red herring. Because that is not the sense of free will that is being argued against.
You're positing this argument against straw men.
So after conceding that Schopenhauer's position resembles Strawson's in some ways you still insist that the two positions don't resemble each other.
Once again, I never conceded that they resembled each other in some ways. Hence, my insistence that two positions don't resemble each other.
You're contradicting yourself.
One cannot contradict oneself. Only arguments contradict. And in order for arguments to contradict, there must be a demonstrable inconsistency. Demonstrate which arguments I've made that contradict.
Both Strawson and Schopenhauer offer similar arguments *against* Libertarian Free Will and *that* is all I mean by the fact that their positions resemble each other. The fact that you accept that they resemble each other in *some* ways is already enough to get to similarity.
What were Schopenhauer's arguments against free will?
You say that Strawson's third premise is especially substantiated but he substantiated that very clearly in the video that you watched. He also made it clear that the argument I gave, and that he started of with in the video, is the 'crude' version. Meaning that, the purpose of that basic argument isn't to substantiate the premises. An argument isn't supposed to substantiate its own premises. To substantiate the premises for an argument you need another argument. Arguments don't substantiate themselves.He went into detail about how for us to *ultimately* make ourselves the way that we are we would have to get back behind ourselves infinitely ... a regress happens whereby we can never ultimately get back behind ourselves to make ourselves the way we are. He made this all very clear in the video. He substantiated the argument just fine.
No, he doesn't substantiate the argument at all. He merely asserts it. I could just as easily say that interviewer "substantiated" his assertion of different principles applying to immaterial consciousness by mere assertion of his argument.
This isn't an answer to the question and it seems that you just misspoke by saying "no" to the question because you say the opposite below.
"Seem" is not an argument; and "no" was in response to your claim that my citing Schopenhauer's agreement was irrelevant, especially in the context where I was rejecting the "resemblance" of Strawson's and Schopenhauer's position.
I don't agree with you that Schopenhauer believed in Libertarian Free Will (and if your point is that you think that he believed in Compatabilist free will then that's a red herring), I don't agree that Schopenhauer's position doesn't resemble Strawson's (and you conceded that they do partially resemble each other ... and I never claimed that they wholly did) .... and they both do offer similar arguments against Libertarian Free Will. It's pointless for us to argue about how much position A has to resemble position B for them to count as resembling. There was no point in you arguing about Schopenhauer anyway because the topic of the thread is whether free will exists and I was offering an argument against free will. So that is what we should be focussing on.Again, the only reason I left that part about Schopenhauer in is because I like to give more rather than less context of the source I'm quoting from. Strawson's argument is the only important part. You happen to be wrong about Schopenhauer, as he is famously against Libertarian Free Will, but it's really not important or even relevant to actually addressing Strawson's argument.
Once again, what arguments did Schopenhauer make against free will?
I already dealt with this prior to you saying this. Again, I was just trying to not leave out the context from where I was quoting from. It's a great vice to quote mine so I didn't want to do that. I already explained this. The actual argument that Strawson provided is clearly what needs to be addressed because that's actually an argument against free will that has been offered.
If you don't want to talk about Schopenhauer anymore, that's all well and good. If Schopenhauer's rationalizations were, as you claim, irrelevant particularly to Strawson's argument, then they should not been quoted to begin with.
And you're not merely responding ... you're responding with red herrings!
You're projecting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Any modification to a "cause" must itself also have a "cause".
So to what do you attribute the modification? The action or the response? I believe that free-will adherents do not deny the the presence of stimuli (influence;) if I've interpreted correctly, they're arguing that their response, which falls within their capacity, is chiefly responsible in their decision-making.
The term "self-caused" is incoherent.
Why?
A human brain is not a closed system.
Elaborate.
Your actions are "caused" by "something" (your genetics (physical and mental capabilities and instincts), your primary experiences (firmware) and your life experiences and education (software).
Does that something necessarily exclude a/the "self?"
The only alternative is RANDOM (which cannot be "will").
Is it then, for example, for someone to willfully engage in random behavior?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How would you justify hair-splitting between "uncaused" and "uninfluenced"??
I'm unable to decipher a meaningful distinction between the two.
ran•dom răn′dəm
This is the response I intended to ascertain. Because they (adherents of Libertarian free will) argue that their decisions can be influenced but not caused. So then, what do they mean by "influence" and what do they mean by "cause"? I suppose one could argue that cause is the source, and influence is the effect of alteration. But then that begs the question: does the alteration effect become the cause of the altered event? That depends. Does one attribute transitively the altered event to the original cause, or does one attribute the altered event to the response of the object? What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@simplybeourselves
'We do what we do because of the way we are' is a premise that you can accept or reject ... not a question begged.
That's not the question begged. I take no issue accepting the premise that we do that which we do by reason of the way we are. I'm asking, what is the way that we are? Is it a composite of personal experiences? Is it genetically influenced behaviors? Is it perspective? All of the above? And how does it necessarily exclude assuming moral responsibility?
To cause the way we are we *would* have to be the cause of ourselves but we can't be the cause of ourselves.
Why not? Presuming of course we're not discussing anything corporeal.
By asking "What is the way we are?" I have to just again ask in response "How is that relevant?". Again, how is the nature of X relevant when X is the cause of what we do and we can't be the cause of X?
Because you're (Strawson's) arguing that X excludes free will. And you haven't substantiated the reason we can't be the cause of X. Hence, the nature of X is important because understanding its nature helps us understands its cause where we can render conclusions soundly on that which causes or does not cause X.
I didn't say that Strawson's position perfectly resembles Schopenhauer's. I'm saying that it resembles it in the relevant sense. Namely, that our motives are causes from within and that we can do what we will but we can't will what we will. *That* is part of Schopenhauer's position that Strawson is very much in agreement with and *that* is the relevant resemblance.
Yes, they can agree on certain points, but that is not the same as resembling a position. Schopenhauer would be a proponent of free will for the reason I mentioned. I don't disagree with all of Strawson's points either, but that doesn't mean that my positions reflects his. Strawson's third premise especially is unsubstantiated, and he doesn't define "what we are." And until he does, there are no grounds for him to exclude one's being responsible.
What's more, why did you say "no" in response to me saying that it doesn't matter what a philosopher thinks of X if X is sound?
Because the context of my response doesn't concern the veracity of Strawson's premise, only whether it resembled Schopenhauer's position--sound or not. I'm not stating that by reason of Schopenhauer's agreement with the contrary, Strawson's premise, X, is therefore false. I'm stating that by reason of Schopenhauer's agreement with the contrary, Strawson's position doesn't resemble Schopenhauer's. That's all.
Do you not agree that if X is sound then X is sound regardless of what another philosopher thinks of X in such a case?
Yes, I agree. My agreement would be irrelevant to veracity. You're doing what I was doing: confirming agreement, and nothing more.
Who cares what Schopenahauer thinks in such a case, anyway, if X is sound anyway.
You're the one who injected Schopenhauer in the first place. I'm merely responding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@3RU7AL:
What do you think of this description?:
The Libertarian view - According to libertarianism, the idea that God causesmen to act in a certain way, but that man has free will in acting that way islogically false. Free means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions areinfluenced, but not caused. God limits the actions of men, but not their mind orwill. Man has the ability to turn to God in Christ and sincerely ask for help,selfishly perhaps, apart from specific (special) divine enablement. According toArminianism, God, in his freedom, not only sets a condition on salvation andwills only to save those who would ask Him to rescue them. God, then,predestines those who He "foreknew" to salvation. Or, according to Open Theism,God is anxiously waiting to see what each person will do, for he cannot knowahead of time what the choice might be.
By the way, this is from your cited link. (Of course, this description would undermine the argument for God's omniscience.) There's a disconnect between this description and yours:
However, if you select "a free action is one that is un-coerced" keep in mind that is the compatibalist's definition and a compatibalist is a determinist (or indeterminist).Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.
When you argue "free from" are you using it in a context where its synonymous with "uninfluenced"?
And if God grants us free will, then is there any "predetermination"?
I'm willing to move forward with any definition you personally prefer.
You submitted your premises. It's only appropriate that you submit their definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@simplybeourselves
Galen pointed out that immaterialism/materialism and determinism/indeterminism aren't relevant. It's claiming that those thing matter that are merely a claim. It's special pleading to just say that if you're an indetermined immaterial soul then that's not what you are. In fact, if that's what you are then that's what you are. Far from just being a claim, that's a tautology. If you do what you do because of what you are and you are X then you do what you do because of X. It doesn't matter whether X is indeterministic or immaterial or not. If you do Y because of X then you do Y because X ... regardless of the nature of X. What do you mean "What does the way were are" mean? We are the way we are regardless of materialism, immaterialism, determinism or indeterminism.
And yet somehow he's arguing that X, which is the way we are, is not self-caused and independent of agency. So then that begs the question: what causes "what we are"? And when the interviewer presses his response, he argues it irrelevant (i.e. genetics or immaterial soul doesn't matter.) And he continues to posit that "the way we are" is not "causa sui" but doesn't define the constitution of "the way we are." The way we are is a spurious a priori at this point because it has yet to be substantiated. And there's no tautological dispute here: I'm not attempting a contradiction of the way we are being the way we are. I'm asking, "what is the way that we are"?
Schopenhauer may not agree with the entirety of Galen's position but he did say that we cannot choose our motives and he also said that motives are causes from within ... and that's suffering that Galen would agree with. Also, it's irrelevant what a particular philosopher thought or didn't think about X if X is sound.
No it's not. I'm not arguing that Schopenhauer's thoughts qualify the veracity of Strawson's premise. (I don't know how you got that from my statement.) I'm merely refuting that Strawson's position resembles Schopenhauer's. And in that context, it is relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@simplybeourselves
--> @AthiasSure, here's the proof in written form:In the free will debate, Strawson holds that there is a fundamental sense in which free will is impossible, whether determinism is true or not. He argues for this position with what he calls his "basic argument", which aims to show that no-one is ever ultimately morally responsible for their actions, and hence that no one has free will in the sense that usually concerns us. In its simplest form, the basic argument runs thus:
- You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
- To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects.
- But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
- So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.[4]
This argument resembles Arthur Schopenhauer's position in On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, summarised by E. F. J. Payne as the "law of motivation, which states that a definite course of action inevitably ensues on a given character and motive".Source of quote:And here is the same philosopher giving the argument in video form:
As it stands now, it's merely a claim. I believe the interviewer summarily rebuffs Strawson's argument by pointing out his refusal to define the mind as a closed "material" system. Without doing as much, what does "the way we are" mean? He never substantiates this part of his premise. And without defining it, how can he allege that it's not "causa sui"?
And Arthur Schopenhauer wouldn't agree with Strawson's position, and instead refer to it as a "spurious a priori." And I'd have to agree. Schopenhauer believed that one could reorient their perspective on the nature of experience, rather than extend the prejudices of culture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Libertarian freewill is the idea that a human can make a "decision" that is fully independent of all previous events.
Where did you ascertain this definition? Or did you conceive it yourself?
Any "decision" (action) that is fully independent of all previous events is by definition, indistinguishable from RANDOM.
That would depend on how one defines "random"? What description of random can you offer that necessitates its qualifying and action, event, or phenomenon as "fully independent?"
And a RANDOM act is not and cannot possibly be considered an act of WILL.
Once again: that depends on how one defines random. So how do you define random?
Ipso facto, libertarian freewill is incoherent (provably FALSE).
This remains to be seen. Once you substantiate your premises, then you can render falsehood.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You will need to immunize your population from coercion.
Can't immunize everything. Anarchy is not utopia. My argument for anarchy posits where accountability and authority "ought" to be.
And I'm not sure how you can possibly do that without creating some sort of "religion".
Are you appealing to your own incredulity?
Can you imagine an entire "society" of (individually sovereign) people willing to actually stake their lives for "give me liberty or give me death"?
Yes, I can. But that is not to say that there aren't those who are unwilling to stake their lives. Hence, moral revolution is a necessity.
The self-interested babies will be the first to collaborate with their invaders, and the rest will die.
An unsubstantiated "Hobbesian" consequence. The problem with Hobbes' argument was that it couldn't substantiate how government was immune to the proclivities from which he argued man could not escape.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
And how, exactly is your collective of autonomous individual voluntary sovereigns going to protect themselves from a well organized FEUDAL HIERARCHY (without organizing their own FEUDAL HIERARCHY)?
Presuming this feudal hierarchy is aggressive, then we take up arms and defend our lands. But answer me this: what place would feudal hierarchies have in the advent of the moral revolution which informs the anarchy for which I argue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
POLITICAL POLL #1: If current trends continue, will BLM succeed in advancing the position of the black community in the US? (socioeconomics, safety etc.)My current stance is NO. Give me arguments for both positions.
All one needs to do is go on the BLM website and glance at their mission statement. They have goals, but no solutions. The movement is merely a pretext to ingratiate "black lesbianism and black transgenderism" with the so-called "black community" all while citing the sacrificial lamb--oddly enough--known as "black males" as their impetus. The only thing that BLM will advance is lesbian separatism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@simplybeourselves
Libertarian free will is provably impossible whether determinism is true or false.
Would you mind proving or offering proof of its impossibility?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The absence (or indifference, or incompetence) of government leaves a power-vacuum
That is the intended end.
which will be filled by the savvy.
One would find it optimal that a society reflects cooperation among the savvy.
Humans are basically selfish babies.
Why? How?
Any system that REQUIRES humans to act as intelligent, self-reliant, adults is doomed.
By extending your reasoning, you're either stating that governments are doomed, or that governments don't require humans to act as intelligent, self-reliant adults.
And like ALL organizations (organisms) it becomes self-protecting and self-interested (proto-government).One type is not "more inclined" than another.
So then how is your allegation that proto-governments will emerge in the advent of anarchy a criticism when juxtaposing centralization and decentralization if "one is no more inclined than the other"?
Although a HOLACRACY takes better care of its own members than a traditional FEUDAL HIERARCHY.
Holocracies are doomed aren't they?
Because humans are basically selfish babies.If I raise chickens and my neighbor raises pigs, we might agree to trade some number of eggs for some number of strips of bacon.This is a nearly symbiotic (purely voluntary) relationship (as long as bacon and eggs are not considered necessities).However, if a third neighbor also raises chickens and undercuts my bacon price, I have to pay more eggs to get my bacon.The cooperation between neighbor 2 and neighbor 3 comes at "my expense".
No it doesn't. This presumes that you have a claim to a fixed price of goods. What if neighbor three isn't in the picture, and neighbor two solicits more eggs because his pigs aren't reproducing at his desired rate? You're over-producing because your hens are extremely fertile, and your roosters are incredibly virile. The scarcity of your respective products are different and would, therefore, affect the price--or the standard to which you're willing to trade. The boost in price may be inconvenient but that doesn't inform that a boost in price has "come at your expense."
Furthermore, I believe "self-interested" is more apropos (though, unfortunately, the English Language doesn't offer much latitude in making the distinction between the two.) So then the solution becomes simple: conceive and rationalize a moral standard which is fundamentally premised on self-interest. The only moral standard that's consistent with respect to the aforementioned directive is individualism. And by extending the premise of self-interest, we can conceive and rationalize autonomy, sovereignty, and voluntarism. Individualism, for lack of a better term, harmonizes the plethora of self-interests by acknowledging individuals discretion to be self-interested. And since it's a moral standard, it is sustained by those who respect the premise and rational extensions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
sure, I have never seen any evidence that jesus was one of them though.
What would be considered evidence, which informs his being Caucasian?
When you state that he's "Middle-Eastern," you're not stating much. There are Caucasoid middle easterners; there are negroid middle easterners; and there are mongoloid middle easterners. What are you attempting to argue by claiming that he's "Middle Eastern"? That he's "non-white"? "White" is not a race, ethnicity or culture. It's a corporate designation.
No. Historians make the most logical deduction that can be made. He most certainly was not the blonde haired European a lot of Christians depict him as. Depicting him as european is just obviously not accurate and racist.But again, I repeat that I do not think that it is worth tearing down statues for. I'm just saying I can see where they are coming from.
What do you mean by "European"? There are non-caucasoid Europeans--largely due to the mongol invasions, the Moors, the Etruscans, and the Ottoman Empire. Scotland had so-called "black" monarchs (e.g. Kenneth III.) Nazareth is in Galilee. Galilee is in Northern Israel. Israel is in the Arabian peninsula, which is a composite of South Western Asia, South Eastern Europe, and North Eastern Africa.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
In the flashback that reveals the origins of "The Corleone Family" rise to power, regular citizens voice their quibbles to "The Godfather", these are quibbles that the individuals find personally significant, but "the police" and or other official authority figures will not take seriously.By appealing to and assisting those who feel powerless, loyalty and thus power is accumulated by the savvy.
Hence the mere absence of government does not suffice. I would never argue nor have I ever argued that. The anarchy of which I speak requires a moral revolution.
Sometimes it's an "outside" threat, like bands of roving outlaws or raiders. But once the "outside" threat is vanquished, the organization that vanquished them is loathe to disband. And like all organizations (organisms) it becomes self-protecting and self-interested (proto-government).Membership carries special privileges.
And how are proto-governments more inclined then governments to become "self"-protecting and "self"-interested?
I was careful to say "usually" and not "always" because true symbiosis is extremely rare in the sphere of human cooperation.Please share what you believe might qualify as a counter-factual example.
Why is true symbiosis extremely rare in the sphere of human cooperation? What informs this claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I never said it was about history. Dr.Franklin said that. I was pointing out how dumb that is. It isn't about history. It is about the racist undertones of changing the race of jesus to make him white when he was very obviously middle eastern.
Are there no Caucasians in the Middle East?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But why are we tearing own statues of Abraham Lincoln and Jesus? Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves from slavery and Jesus freed us from hell.
Abraham Lincoln didn't free the slaves, and Jesus would have no problem with his statue being torn down since he condemns idolatry.
Created: