Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm sorry but an example of what?Erasing religions from the scene totally give me an example. Given that you understood the conditions I proposed...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yes.Is making determinations about god or a Creator difficult for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm pretty sure we are getting no where. I'm pretty sure we've already been over all these points. I have enjoyed the conversation. Thank you. I'm sure we will have a virtually identical conversation again sometime in the future when the subject is raised again. We won't be able to help ourselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You seem to want mental causal chains put in a different category from any other causal chains. I have no reason not to include mental causation under the umbrella of cause and effect. Even assuming it is somehow different thay does not give us licence to make assumptions about freewill.mental causation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I know what I think a priesthood is and scientists do not as a rule fall under that definition so I was asking yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
What tautologies...?
This one
Definition:God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, from the scriptural definition of Allah in Chapter 112 of the Quran.
Let's try this.
Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, definition of the FSM courtesy of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Now I did not look in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster I just copied your text but the FSM is perportedly all those things so even if the wording is different than yours let's consider this an approximation. Now does this deffinition necessitate the flying spaghetti monster? If the definition is not enough then logically
Argument:
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists. [ evident ]
2. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. [ follows from 1. ]
3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. [ follows from 1. & 2. ]
4. This cause must either be a contingent or a non-contingent -necessary- being. [ law of excluded middle ]
5. Contingent beings solely are not sufficient for the existence of a contingent being. [ follows from 3. ]
6. This cause must include a necessary being. [ follows from 4. & 5. ]
7. Therefore, a Necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. [ follows from 1. & 7. ]
8. Two necessary distinct beings exist. [ assumption ]
9. A difference between the distinct necessary beings exists. [ follows from 8. ]
10. This difference is either necessary or contingent. [ law of excluded middle ]
11. If the difference is necessary, then three necessary beings exist. [ absurd! ]
12. If the difference is contingent (has a cause or an explanation for its existence), then at least one of the two necessary beings is contingent (has a cause or explanation for its/their existence). [ absurd! ]
13. Therefore, a necessary being is one (i.e. unique). [ follows from 10. & 11. & 12.]
14. Similarly, a necessary being is simple (i.e does not have parts) [ substitute "necessary beings" with "parts" in 9. ]
15. Therefore, the necessary being is Singular (i.e. unique & simple). [ follows from 13. & 14. ]
16. The sum of all contingent beings is not singular. [ evident ]
17. Therefore, the sum of all contingent beings is Distinct from the necessary being. [follows from 15. & 16. ]
18. Therefore, the necessary being is Transcendent from the sum all contingent beings. [ follows from 17. ]
19. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent (not necessary, i.e. not identical to the necessary being). [ follows from 15. & 17. ]
20. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent on a necessary being. [ follows from 2. & 3. & 6. & 19. ]
21. The necessary being is the sole cause of the existence of the sum of all contingent beings. [ follows from 15. & 20. ]
22. The attribute to cause the sum of all contingent being exists (Will). [ evident from 19. ]
23. All contingent beings are equally non-existent prior to existence. [ evident ]
24. The Will is Absolutely Free. [ follows from 22. & 23. ]
25. Therefore, a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. [ follows from 7. & 15. & 18. & 24. ]
C. Therefore, the FSM exits. [ as defined in The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster]
I see no reason to accept the Quran and deny The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Determinism hasn't been demonstrated to the cause of all human action
It has been shown to be the cause of some human action. I'm not sure how we would demonstrate that indeterminism acted as such a cause. So with one model proven to explain some human action and the other is just a placeholder for any behaviors we do not readily understand the reason for I don't understand your insistence that observable cause and effect is a less likely explanation .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There is a problem with that analogy when used in this context. There are literally thousands of religions if we assume that only one of them is true which is I believe your contention, then your analogy would be better stateded where there's smoke there is almost never fire.where there is smoke, there is probably fire
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
you're arguing that no free will exist because determinism is true.
I do not believe that to be the case. My argument is that freewill cannot be demonstrated and that I do not accept it prima facie without some demonstration.
If determinism is true then I do believe it is incompatible with the idea of freewill but even if the universe is partly or wholey indeterministic freewill is not necessitated and so must still be somehow observed independently of the individual anecdotal experience.
How do we determine the difference between an event that is not determined by a preceding causal chain and one whose connection to a previous causal chain is not apparent to us?You can once you eliminate the hidden variables.
So until these hidden variables are eliminated this is all pure speculation on your part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
most definitions of determinism are incompatible with free will. But it depends on which defintion of determinism and free will is being used.
Yes language is subjective. We are free to adjust our definitions if you like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So even under indeterminism, every effect can have a preceding cause. It is just the distinction that not every event is determined by a preceding causal chain.
How do we determine the difference between an event that is not determined by a preceding causal chain and one whose connection to a previous causal chain is not apparent to us? You have already pointed out that to the best of your understanding particles behave indeterminately and yet do not have freewill so this freewill thing you are discussing is not necessitated by indeterminism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Assuming that some god(s) exist how do we make any determinations about god(s) without a method for falsifying claims?
Created:
Posted in:
because the behavior of particles is indeterminate until observed.So particleshave freewill?No, not as far as we know.
So indeterminism is not actually indicative of freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So particleshave freewill?because the behavior of particles is indeterminate until observed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
An event can't be uncaused.
So far as we know this is true. Determinism is just a universe of cause and effect.
Indeterminism is indicated in quantum mechanics.
You mean because some quantum events do not appear to have a cause?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What differences would you expect to see between determinism and indeterminism?
I don't think we could readily differentiate between an uncauseed event and an event whose cause is not known to us. Indeterminism may not be demonstrable even if there is any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If we have no direct experience of being "remote-controlled" by external forces then determinism is false.
Even If we do have direct experience of being "remote-controlled" by external forces I'm not sure we would know it unless we had also directly experienced freewill and those two experiences were observably different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Are you saying there is no imaginable difference between the feeling of being remote-controlled by external forces versus having control of yourself?
What we "imagine" it would feel like is immaterial if we have no direct experience of being remote-controlled by external forces. In that case we do not know what it would feel like we can only imagine and I can absolutely imagine things that are not directly equitable to reality.
In fact without having experienced both how can you be certain which one you are experiencing right now
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What does that feel like?It would feel like something else was remote-controlling you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Can you describe how it would "feel" different regardless of which is the truth?does it feel to you that you whether you answer this post or not was predetermined a billion years ago, and 'you' have no say in that 'choice'? Is that what it feels like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Then it is beyond human epistemology.it cannot be demonstrated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Some chemical reactions are always taking place (in our local observable spacetime)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I can be compelled by sufficient evidence to change my mind. In fact I would have no choice but to accept whatever the evidence proved. If you have no sufficient evidence however then there may in fact be no point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Also my beliefs can and have changed. This is unconnected with freewill. Even if I was willing to grant freewill beliefs are a realization not a choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
This
Your beliefs can't change and were determined during the Big Bang. You can't make rational statements, just automated responses determined by physics and chemistry.
Does not address this
Unless you have chosen what you feel is the logical conclusion rather than following logical steps to what you feel is the logical conclusion logic is not an indicator of freewill. I am unaware of the difference between a rational argument and a logical one.If you have simply chosen what you feel is logical I would argue that this is not as logical as following logical steps.
Logic has a nearly predetermined course when used properly. No choices need to be made in order to employ logic. My capacity for logic is clearly not dependent on my freewill or lack thereof.
If you see a specific logical flaw in my reasoning point it out and offer a counterfactual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Unless you have chosen what you feel is the logical conclusion rather than following logical steps to what you feel is the logical conclusion logic is not an indicator of freewill. I am unaware of the difference between a rational argument and a logical one.
If you have simply chosen what you feel is logical I would argue that this is not as logical as following logical steps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I do not agree with your conclusion. Neither self awareness nor the ability to recognize logic and use reason necessitate freewill unless you can show that the cause we have actually observed is insufficient.
I do not accept freewill prima facie. If your argument requires me too I'm not sure what to tell you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
People at least have the strong illusion that they have free choices
That being the case If there is more to it it falls to you to demonstrate that.
Cause and effect are not in dispute. Freewill is what must be demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I thought we agreed that a thing which does not exist can not be pointed to as an explanation/cause of something that does.
If that is the case then a logical consequence would seem to be that something which has not been demonstrated can not be pointed to as an explanation/cause of sonething which has been demonstrated.
Also you have not demonstrated that human behavior is not subject to determinism. You had in fact as much as admitted that it is. If there is more to it it falls to you to demonstrate that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No worries. Thank you for hosting it on the first place.I have abandoned this thread. Sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
It doesnt matter if one is demonstrably a part of the equation and the other is merely speculative. The one which has not been demonstrated had less explanatory power because some is always more than none.Cause and effect and free will aren't mutually exclusive. Hard determinism and free will are mutually exclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Was I somehow unclear? If we can demonstrate cause and effect and we cannot demonstrate freewill then freewill has,no explanatory power which is less explanatory power than cause and effect inmuch the same way that gravity (which is demonstrable) has more explanatory power than any god(s) (which are undeminstrable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Things that cannot be demonstrated have no explanatory power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingArthur
Then by all means what is your point?You're missing my point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
As I said it is not exhaustive or conclusive but it is sufficient. If however you come up with a post hoc justification for your behaviors/beliefs then you don't actually know where they come from.
So we cannot say that more than determinism is at work but determinism is partly respond
And we cannot say whether freewill is a factor at all.
If this statement has any specific logical flaws please let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-Witch
Do you fail to recognize the difference between denial and lack of belief ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingArthur
But again, my clumping *>certain<* atheists
I am referring to this post in which you specifically say certain atheists. Also being an atheist does not necessitate denying any god(s) just not believing in them is sufficient.
Created:
Posted in:
@polytheist-witch
What is more stupid: thinking only kangaroos are marsupials or that they are only 2000 years old.
Neither is necessarily the pr9duct of stupidity. Simply being misinformed would be sufficient
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingArthur
So you are now softening your claim to only include 'certain' atheists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I can only say that in any instance where I took the time to investigate there was a reason. As I said this is far from exhaustive or conclusive but it certainly doesn't leave me with any reason to think that this is not the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Assuming Adam spoke some form of Hebrew there is no Hebrew word for kangaroo nor any menti9n of them in the old testament. this is hardly surprising given certain geographical realities but the point is that if Adam was even based on some historical figure he did not know of think about 9r have a word for kangaroo.
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-Witch
That does not answer my question. Pretend for a moment That a fellow theist had asked this question. How would you answer them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Am I to take your lack 9f response as agreement?
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-Witch
There are many who deny that vehemently. How shall I evaluate their claims against yours in 9rder t9 see which of you (if any) are actually correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The problem of course is that these books have been written. This tends to support the notion that there may be truth to something within their pages.
The mere fact that a book was written is no guarantee that its pages cintain any truth and no truth wuthin a book guarantees that anything else in a book would also be true. The point though is that right or wrong human beings tend to look for comfort in religions and since we both agree that the bulk of religions are man made that means that in the absence of abrahamic religion another sort would almost certainly take it's place. I don't see that your objections are relevant to the thought experiment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingArthur
Were my posts somehow unclear to you? Do we have different deffinition if the word religion? Does that mean an atheist buhdist has two religions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
That would be easier to believe if every human being I've ever observed did not have a reason for everythingb they did. While that is hardly exhaustive or conclusive it does suggest that we need reasons to do things.
Also if your reasons set your intentions then your intentions are not under your control unless your reasons for doing something are and if your will drives towards your goals then the same thing can be said about your will.
Are you claiming to have control over your desires or your circumsrsnces? I'm not sure you have any control over either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
A reason is insufficient reason?
I don't know if I agree with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Are you saying that having a reason is insufficient to explain an action on the part of a human being?
Created: