PDA

View Full Version : What Is Man?



seer
12-23-2015, 06:38 AM
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” Richard Dawkins




"Remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.” C.S. Lewis

Two very stark views of mankind. In one men are just the accidental by product of the forces of nature, no ultimate purpose, no overriding justice - in reality no good or evil. In the other view men have a purpose, were created for a reason. And have a future - what we do here has eternal consequences raising our behavior to a level far beyond what is the case in a godless universe. Our behaviors are much more important because we are much more important.

shunyadragon
12-23-2015, 06:59 AM
Two very stark views of mankind. In one men are just the accidental by product of the forces of nature, no ultimate purpose, no overriding justice - in reality no good or evil. In the other view men have a purpose, were created for a reason. And have a future - what we do here has eternal consequences raising our behavior to a level far beyond what is the case in a godless universe. Our behaviors are much more important because we are much more important. These two extreme views of 'What is human?' do not necessarily answer the question, nor accurately address the issue objectively.

As always I have considered CS Lewis's view naïve and idealistic, and Dawkins view cold, overtly materialistic and extreme.

I will look for more objective views of what it is to be human.

First, an objective view from the scientific view does not consider the physical nature of our humanity as well as the nature of our physical existence 'accidental.' Being an accident would refer to an event or circumstance that is unpredictable or unforeseeable. This is not the case for the nature of our physical existence.

seer
12-23-2015, 07:17 AM
First, an objective view from the scientific view does not consider the physical nature of our humanity as well as the nature of our physical existence 'accidental.' Being an accident would refer to an event or circumstance that is unpredictable or unforeseeable. This is not the case for the nature of our physical existence.

Really, our existence was foreseeable and predictable? By whom? And if you don't like accidental we could say that there was no purpose for humankind.

firstfloor
12-23-2015, 08:53 AM
The natural emergence of human beings is not inevitable but it is possible. The emergence of life is obviously much more likely. It is our rarity in the cosmos that gives us value. But the appreciation of that value is for us alone to consider. The cosmos does not know us and is unwittingly hostile to our continued existence. Even we hate ourselves so much that we design bombs to kill ourselves by the millions and we invent religions and gods to divide us.

shunyadragon
12-23-2015, 11:38 AM
Really, our existence was foreseeable and predictable? By whom? And if you don't like accidental we could say that there was no purpose for humankind.

The belief that there is no purpose for humanity is likewise a simplistic extreme view, like Dawkins. It is not whether I like accidental or not, it is a bad choice of words. Yes the existence of life, and humanity is predictable by natural causes. It is not necessarily the only out come in any given world in our universe, but it is a consistent predictable outcome by natural causes.

shunyadragon
12-23-2015, 11:45 AM
The natural emergence of human beings is not inevitable but it is possible. The emergence of life is obviously much more likely. It is our rarity in the cosmos that gives us value. But the appreciation of that value is for us alone to consider. The cosmos does not know us and is unwittingly hostile to our continued existence. Even we hate ourselves so much that we design bombs to kill ourselves by the millions and we invent religions and gods to divide us.

Actually it is unknown how rare the natural emergence of human beings is, because we have insufficient information as to how common planets similar to ours is in our universe. We are only just beginning to discover a few planets near by that are in some way similar to ours. Considering the great expanse of time, space, and galaxies involved we have a long way to know how common intelligent life like humans is in the cosmos.

seer
12-23-2015, 01:24 PM
The belief that there is no purpose for humanity is likewise a simplistic extreme view, like Dawkins. It is not whether I like accidental or not, it is a bad choice of words. Yes the existence of life, and humanity is predictable by natural causes. It is not necessarily the only out come in any given world in our universe, but it is a consistent predictable outcome by natural causes.

It is not simplistic Shuny, of course there is no purpose for man - if there is please tell us what that purpose is. And no human life is not predictable because it is not a necessary consequence of natural forces.

Truthseeker
12-23-2015, 01:27 PM
**EXTRA ** Shunyadragon implicitly claims he can answer who, where, when, how, why questions about a given person's death. **EXTRA**

shunyadragon
12-23-2015, 03:05 PM
It is not simplistic Shuny, of course there is no purpose for man - if there is please tell us what that purpose is. And no human life is not predictable because it is not a necessary consequence of natural forces.

Then you believe there is no purpose for humanity. Is that right?

shunyadragon
12-23-2015, 03:05 PM
**EXTRA ** Shunyadragon implicitly claims he can answer who, where, when, how, why questions about a given person's death. **EXTRA**

No, but seer seems to have everything worked and all the questions answered.

firstfloor
12-23-2015, 03:39 PM
Actually it is unknown how rare the natural emergence of human beings is, because we have insufficient information as to how common planets similar to ours is in our universe. We are only just beginning to discover a few planets near by that are in some way similar to ours. Considering the great expanse of time, space, and galaxies involved we have a long way to know how common intelligent life like humans is in the cosmos.See Fermi Paradox – “Where is everybody?”

seer
12-23-2015, 03:58 PM
Then you believe there is no purpose for humanity. Is that right?

No, I'm saying that if atheism/materialism is true there is no purpose for humankind. But as a Theist of course I believe we were designed for a purpose.

firstfloor
12-23-2015, 04:07 PM
No, I'm saying that if atheism/materialism is true there is no purpose for humankind.It just means that you have to be your own god and discover your purpose by yourself.

shunyadragon
12-23-2015, 04:35 PM
See Fermi Paradox – “Where is everybody?”

The assumption of the Fermi paradox is flawed: (1) It assumes habituated earth like planets with intelligent beings ever develop interstellar travel. We haven't, and it is an open question whether we will ever be able to. (2) There is a possibility though very very small that they have visited us. (3) Our horizon in space and time for discovering other earth-like planets is limited by present technology even in our galaxy. (4) There are likely millions if not billions of possible galaxies we have no access at present. (5) If your blind it is unlikely that you will see anyone beyond the tip of your nose.

seer
12-23-2015, 04:36 PM
It just means that you have to be your own god and discover your purpose by yourself.

Yes, as Hitler did, and Mao, and Stalin....

shunyadragon
12-23-2015, 04:41 PM
No, I'm saying that if atheism/materialism is true there is no purpose for humankind. But as a Theist of course I believe we were designed for a purpose.

This is too simplist yes/no answer to conclude how humans from different cultures over time define purpose in their lives. All cultures from the Neolithic to the present have purpose in their lives and all cultures whether they are theist or not. It is apparent by the evidence that human cultures have purpose as a society or as individuals regardless of their religious beliefs.

firstfloor
12-23-2015, 05:02 PM
Yes, as Hitler did, and Mao, and Stalin....I contend that everyone acts this way. You are your own god as well but you don’t acknowledge it. When you pray, who do you think is listening except yourself? The proof that you are god is in the fact that prayer does not work.

shunyadragon
12-23-2015, 05:09 PM
Yes, as Hitler did, and Mao, and Stalin....

There are no angels in human history. Calling this card as usual is a tragic fallacy.

Tassman
12-23-2015, 05:34 PM
No, I'm saying that if atheism/materialism is true there is no purpose for humankind.

...and you find this notion unacceptable therefore it can't be true, is that it? :lol:

In fact we all find joy in living and love of family and friends plus enthusiasms like music or football. One doesn't need the futile hope of a post-mortem existence to provide "purpose". How pathetic is that?


But as a Theist of course I believe we were designed for a purpose.

...a belief not supported by substantive evidence.

seer
12-23-2015, 05:43 PM
This is too simplist yes/no answer to conclude how humans from different cultures over time define purpose in their lives. All cultures from the Neolithic to the present have purpose in their lives and all cultures whether they are theist or not. It is apparent by the evidence that human cultures have purpose as a society or as individuals regardless of their religious beliefs.

That is not what I asked Shuny, it is about a purpose for humankind (like I said in my OP), not what different cultures subjectively decide their purpose is or is not.

seer
12-23-2015, 05:47 PM
There are no angels in human history. Calling this card as usual is a tragic fallacy.

Right and in a godless universe there is no ultimate purpose for humankind - only subjective purpose, like Hitler's.

shunyadragon
12-23-2015, 06:16 PM
That is not what I asked Shuny, it is about a purpose for humankind (like I said in my OP), not what different cultures subjectively decide their purpose is or is not.

Yes it is about purpose for humanity and the individual. It is relevant that the facts are people of different cultures have a purpose of humanity throughout history regardless of whether they were or are theist or not. This is simply a fact of the diversity of human history for millennia. Many if not most may not share your belief in the purpose for humanity, nonetheless they have one.

shunyadragon
12-23-2015, 06:20 PM
Right and in a godless universe there is no ultimate purpose for humankind - only subjective purpose, like Hitler's.

Our universe exists as it is regardless of whether there is a God or not.

Tassman
12-23-2015, 07:58 PM
Right and in a godless universe there is no ultimate purpose for humankind - only subjective purpose, like Hitler's.

Correct. There's no good reason to think the universe is anything other than "godless".

As for Hitler, his rise to power was a direct consequence of the Versailles Treaty impoverishing and humiliating the people of Germany. The signatories of the Treaty were all believers in your "godly universe" (it was a more ignorant era back then) but this didn't do the German people much good and Hitler was able to capitalise on their misery.

seer
12-24-2015, 06:18 AM
Yes it is about purpose for humanity and the individual. It is relevant that the facts are people of different cultures have a purpose of humanity throughout history regardless of whether they were or are theist or not. This is simply a fact of the diversity of human history for millennia. Many if not most may not share your belief in the purpose for humanity, nonetheless they have one.

Except there is no ultimate purpose for humanity, that was Dawkins, point. We are the purposeless creation of a purposeless universe. I'm not saying that you can't make up your own purpose.

seer
12-24-2015, 06:20 AM
Our universe exists as it is regardless of whether there is a God or not.

So? The discussion is about whether humanity has any inherent or ultimate purpose. And apart from God they do not or can not.

seer
12-24-2015, 06:21 AM
Correct. There's no good reason to think the universe is anything other than "godless".

Well I'm glad we agree that in your godless universe humanity has no ultimate or inherent purpose.

shunyadragon
12-24-2015, 08:03 AM
So? The discussion is about whether humanity has any inherent or ultimate purpose. And apart from God they do not or can not.

The problem of the ultimate purpose of humanity is a theological and philosophical issue and remains an anecdotal claim regardless of variable claims and beliefs of different cultures and beliefs of humanity. If you are a metaphysical naturalist of sorts, the ultimate purpose of humanity is the survival of the species and perpetuation of the morals, ethics and principles of human nature that help insure the survival of future generations.

seer
12-24-2015, 09:29 AM
The problem of the ultimate purpose of humanity is a theological and philosophical issue and remains an anecdotal claim regardless of variable claims and beliefs of different cultures and beliefs of humanity. If you are a metaphysical naturalist of sorts, the ultimate purpose of humanity is the survival of the species and perpetuation of the morals, ethics and principles of human nature that help insure the survival of future generations.

Good so you agree with Dawkins that we are ultimately purposeless. So I don't know why you took exception with his quote, it is quite accurate for a materialist. And no, the purpose of humanity is not to survive, any more that it was the purpose of other extinct species to survive.

shunyadragon
12-24-2015, 09:35 AM
Good so you agree with Dawkins that we are ultimately purposeless. So I don't know why you took exception with his quote, it is quite accurate for a materialist. And no, the purpose of humanity is not to survive, any more that it was the purpose of other extinct species to survive.

I took exception to his quote because he takes an extreme view. No the metaphysical naturalist does not necessarily believe humanity is ultimately purposeless. Again, the belief in what the purpose of humanity is too variable to be make sense in this discussion.

It would help if you cite me properly and completely.

seer
12-24-2015, 10:12 AM
I took exception to his quote because he takes an extreme view. No the metaphysical naturalist does not necessarily believe humanity is ultimately purposeless.

Then what is the ultimate purpose of humanity according to a metaphysical naturalist?

shunyadragon
12-24-2015, 10:42 AM
Then what is the ultimate purpose of humanity according to a metaphysical naturalist?

I already provided that for you.

If you are a metaphysical naturalist of sorts, the ultimate purpose of humanity is the survival of the species and perpetuation of the morals, ethics and principles of human nature that help insure the survival of future generations.

seer
12-24-2015, 11:23 AM
I already provided that for you.

If you are a metaphysical naturalist of sorts, the ultimate purpose of humanity is the survival of the species and perpetuation of the morals, ethics and principles of human nature that help insure the survival of future generations.

But that is not a rational statement as I have shown. Was it the purpose of past species that went extinct to survive? You are just making stuff up now. And what or who decided that this was the purpose of humanity?

shunyadragon
12-24-2015, 12:52 PM
But that is not a rational statement as I have shown. Was it the purpose of past species that went extinct to survive? You are just making stuff up now. And what or who decided that this was the purpose of humanity?

It is very much a rational statement. The past species were not rational intelligent species with some control over their own destiny. No not making anything up. This is actually simply the case for all humanity including your world view, which only extends the survival of the species into another spiritual world. The metaphysical naturalists consider their immortality in their future generations. We in reality do not know what the future holds for humanity. It could be thousands, hundreds of thousands or more years in the future especially if we develop space travel.

seer
12-24-2015, 02:13 PM
It is very much a rational statement. The past species were not rational intelligent species with some control over their own destiny. No not making anything up. This is actually simply the case for all humanity including your world view, which only extends the survival of the species into another spiritual world. The metaphysical naturalists consider their immortality in their future generations. We in reality do not know what the future holds for humanity. It could be thousands, hundreds of thousands or more years in the future especially if we develop space travel.

What? You are doing it again, taking a subjective view and running with it. There is no objective reason why we as a species should survive, and there is no ultimate purpose that concludes that we should survive. Yes Shuny, you are making stuff up again. Nature did not create us for a purpose God did.

shunyadragon
12-24-2015, 02:52 PM
What? You are doing it again, taking a subjective view and running with it. There is no objective reason why we as a species should survive, and there is no ultimate purpose that concludes that we should survive. Yes Shuny, you are making stuff up again. Nature did not create us for a purpose God did.

My answer was specific and detailed. It is obvious you will not acknowledge rational alternate view in a discussion. As I suspected our dialogue ends here.

seer
12-24-2015, 07:54 PM
My answer was specific and detailed. It is obvious you will not acknowledge rational alternate view in a discussion. As I suspected our dialogue ends here.

No Shuny, you are making stuff up again, a metaphysical naturalist may have an opinion, but that is opinion, not the ultimate purpose of humanity because nature (which created us) has no purpose for humanity - nature could care less whether we survive or not. Dawkins point was perfectly accurate.

Tassman
12-24-2015, 08:40 PM
Well I'm glad we agree that in your godless universe humanity has no ultimate or inherent purpose.

There's no good reason to think the universe is anything other than "godless" and you have no substantive evidence to prove otherwise.

JimL
12-24-2015, 10:02 PM
No Shuny, you are making stuff up again, a metaphysical naturalist may have an opinion, but that is opinion, not the ultimate purpose of humanity because nature (which created us) has no purpose for humanity - nature could care less whether we survive or not. Dawkins point was perfectly accurate.
There is no reason to believe that nature has an ultimate purpose. Mans purpose is to act, live, survive according to his nature. Insisting that man must have an ultimate purpose just because you dislike the alternative isn't a very convincing argument.

siam
12-24-2015, 11:26 PM
What is Man?

The purpose of asking the question may determine the type of answer?...
If we were asking for Legal purpose, (homicide---killing an animal is different from killing a "human") scientific purpose, (classifications...etc), or determining ethical/moral principles (bioethics...etc....)

What is the Purpose of Man

If we are asking this question for ethico-moral reasons, then it may be wise to set up some parameters....in the case of Islam---this is done through the concept of Tawheed (Unity/One God).
Man is NOT God. Man(Creation) is dependent upon God, but God is independent of Man/Creation. The concept of "God" (One God/Tawheed) and Man promotes benefits for Man but a definition of "Man" is of no consequence one way or the other to "God". Therefore, both the theory and application of ethico-moral principles should focus on benefits "for Man". In order for us to arrive at a consistent, coherent, and comprehensive paradigm---we need to look at the micro (Man) and macro (ecology) symbiosis and their relationship to Tawheed (Unity). So, the principles and application of ethics/morality should "benefit" the interactions between Men as well as between men and "creation". "God" can serve as a unifying force/idea in these diverse interrelationships, provide higher degree of legitimacy/authority to the ethico-moral principles and motivate human beings through the promotion of our inherent desire for altruism.
(I am not saying that God is necessary to arrive at beneficial ethico-moral principles---but having "God" as a unifying force gives a higher degree of benefit)

There is an interesting idea in Islamic philosophy about the human heart and the phenomenon of nature---The human heart expands and constricts (and this pumps the blood---a vital function for the human body), likewise "nature" (or God) has abundance (khair) and restriction (sharr)---both of which are necessary for the well-being of "creation". The pairing of these two modes creates balance and harmony. Therefore, when we are speaking of "benefit", we should also pair it---to have benefit (rights) and to give benefit (responsibility).

If balancing rights and responsibilities in all our interactions between human beings and with all creation promotes benefits---then we can give assent to the idea of Man as caretaker/Trustee......which gives us "purpose"
God's will = right belief + right intentions + right actions for the benefit of all of God's creations. (Khalifa/Trusteeship)

However, insofar as "Man" is individual, it is also important that overall personal well-being be given consideration. "Man" has 3 components, Body, Soul, Spirit---"Man" achieves inner peace when he/soul is in harmony with body and spirit. The pursuit of meaning and the needs of survival should be balanced so that they do not conflict, create inner discord.

Truthseeker
12-25-2015, 01:17 PM
To survive and live as long as possible . . . is in every virus' nature, its purpose.

Tassman
12-25-2015, 05:17 PM
To survive and live as long as possible . . . is in every virus' nature, its purpose.

Indeed! The survival instinct is common to all living creatures…to the extent that that some humans even postulate eternal survival.

seer
12-25-2015, 05:31 PM
To survive and live as long as possible . . . is in every virus' nature, its purpose.


Purpose

1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

Not really, purpose suggests an intention, a goal. Nature has no goal or intention, except what haphazardly happens. Some species survive others don't, no purpose, no aim, no goal.

JimL
12-25-2015, 05:51 PM
Not really, purpose suggests an intention, a goal. Nature has no goal or intention, except what haphazardly happens. Some species survive others don't, no purpose, no aim, no goal.
If god didn't exist seer, I think it would still be your "intention/purpose" to survive.

siam
12-25-2015, 08:16 PM
survival may be a purpose---but if that were the only one...we would not have philosophy. As long as one of the characteristics of human nature/Man is to seek meaning---we will require a much more "meaningful" purpose for our own intellectual satisfaction. Some people (Chris Hedges, Karen Armstrong, Scott Atran...) have said that without a meaningful/glorious purpose that encourages peace....young people will seek meaning/glory in war, in battle....

Theism may not be the only means of creating meaningful purpose promoting peace----but it is a useful one....

Tassman
12-25-2015, 09:15 PM
Not really, purpose suggests an intention, a goal. Nature has no goal or intention, except what haphazardly happens. Some species survive others don't, no purpose, no aim, no goal.

Yes, "some species survive others don't", most don’t in fact, but all creatures possess the survival instinct and resist the prospect of death. Nevertheless, you’re correct, ultimately there’s “no purpose, no aim no goal”.

Just because the human animal, being more intelligent, has been able to construct elaborate fantasies to avoid death and gain everlasting life in no way indicates that this is true. There’s not a shred of credible evidence to suggest that it is…it’s merely escapism based upon the fear of death, which is common to all creatures.

Tassman
12-26-2015, 01:37 AM
If god didn't exist seer, I think it would still be your "intention/purpose" to survive.

Of course it would, it's how we've evolved. The survival instinct is common to all living creatures regardless of whether they actually do survive...in fact "More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct". Wiki.

arnoldo
12-26-2015, 02:46 AM
Indeed! The survival instinct is common to all living creatures….
Including fetuses?

seer
12-26-2015, 04:15 AM
If god didn't exist seer, I think it would still be your "intention/purpose" to survive.

Yes, of course, that would be my subjective intention. Unless it was my intention to give up my life for a particular reason.

JimL
12-26-2015, 12:52 PM
Yes, of course, that would be my subjective intention.
Was it your subjective intention to exist? No. So where do you think that your subjective intention to continue to exist, to survive, comes from? Nothing about existence, about life, is objectively intentional, and the purpose for your being is no more objective than a tadpoles.


Unless it was my intention to give up my life for a particular reason.
It is no ones intention to give up their lives, giving up their lives is secondary to, or the result of, their actual intention. Some give up their lives with the intention to free themselves from pain, some for what they perceive to be glory or honor, and some because they believe an award of a second and eternal life awaits them.

Tassman
12-26-2015, 05:22 PM
Including fetuses?

A fetus can’t survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother’s body, unlike born human beings, and best thought of as a part of the mother's body.

Tassman
12-26-2015, 08:18 PM
Yes, of course, that would be my subjective intention. Unless it was my intention to give up my life for a particular reason.

No it wouldn't. It would be your instinct to survive, as evolved via natural selection. It would be no more your "subjective intention" than a housefly trying to avoid being swatted.

seer
12-27-2015, 05:04 AM
Was it your subjective intention to exist? No. So where do you think that your subjective intention to continue to exist, to survive, comes from? Nothing about existence, about life, is objectively intentional, and the purpose for your being is no more objective than a tadpoles.

Bottom line Jim, is that nature does not intend anything, it did not intend us to survive or not survive. There is no purpose for our existence.

arnoldo
12-27-2015, 07:08 AM
It is fully dependent on its mother’s body, unlike born human beings, and best thought of as a part of the mother's body.
Babies born at 6 months of age have a 50% chance of survial outside of the mother's body.
12013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Tassman
12-27-2015, 09:50 PM
Bottom line Jim, is that nature does not intend anything, it did not intend us to survive or not survive. There is no purpose for our existence.

“Intention” implies a mind doing the “intending”, but there's no evidence of this. However, it’s verifiably true that natural selection has resulted in the evolution of the survival instinct among living creatures. We demonstrably care about things. We love our family, friends and community and nurture our young and worry about who’ll win the big match on Saturday. Ultimately these things are of no import, but in the meantime they give life meaning. It’s mere escapism if “meaning” is solely dependent upon the hope of a post-mortem existence with an imaginary divine entity.

JimL
12-28-2015, 03:06 AM
Bottom line Jim, is that nature does not intend anything, it did not intend us to survive or not survive. There is no purpose for our existence.

Correct, there is no ultimate purpose for existence because existence just is. As Tass pointed out above, there is no logical objective reason to believe that existence was intentionally created, there is only a subjective reason for your belief which is your desire to continue to exist.

seer
12-29-2015, 05:11 AM
Correct, there is no ultimate purpose for existence because existence just is. As Tass pointed out above, there is no logical objective reason to believe that existence was intentionally created, there is only a subjective reason for your belief which is your desire to continue to exist.

Then you guys agree with Dawkins:


"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

JimL
12-29-2015, 01:07 PM
Then you guys agree with Dawkins:

Just look at the world around you seer, if you step outside of your own mind for just a sec and take an objective look, what Dawkins says is exactly what is seen. Some people get hurt, other people get lucky, and there is no rhyme or reason to it, nor any objective or ultimate justice. But there is justice, there is purpose, evil and good, as well as pity or empathy, but those things aren't objective realities, they are subject to existence itself.

siam
12-29-2015, 11:38 PM
pitiless indifference---Maybe this is one way to look at life, but it seems pessimistic?....

One could find "rhyme and reason" if one chooses to look at life and universe in that way. If so, looking around us the purpose of the vicissitudes could be seen as "balance and harmony".

Equilibrium--- e·qui·lib·ri·um
ˌēkwəˈlibrēəm,ˌekwəˈlibrēəm/Submit
noun
1)a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

synonyms: balance, symmetry, equipoise, parity, equality; stability

2)a state of physical balance.

3)a calm state of mind.

Tassman
12-30-2015, 01:43 AM
Then you guys agree with Dawkins:

Dawkins is correct: "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”; it's amusing that you think this can't be true just because you don't want it to be true.

Nevertheless, within this "pitiless universe" even the most rabid sceptic demonstrably cares about things a great deal. We all love our family, nurture our young value friends and community and pursue personal interests and hobbies. Ultimately these things have no importance, but in the meantime they give life meaning. It’s mere escapism if “meaning” is solely dependent upon the hope of an eternal post-mortem existence for which there's not a shred of credible evidence.

seer
12-30-2015, 07:22 AM
But there is justice, there is purpose, evil and good, as well as pity or empathy, but those things aren't objective realities, they are subject to existence itself.

Yes and they are as purposeless and meaningless as we as a race are.

JimL
12-30-2015, 05:59 PM
Yes and they are as purposeless and meaningless as we as a race are.
Purposeless and meaningless to who? If god doesn't exist, would you rather live in a world without justice, without a moral system? Of course you wouldn't, it would be idiocy to say that you would. All you are concerned with seer is your continued and eternal existence, and therefore you need an ultimate meaning and purpose for your existence. Meaning and purpose are relative to the living, when your dead, your dead.

Tassman
12-30-2015, 09:26 PM
Yes and they are as purposeless and meaningless as we as a race are.

Not at all! The administration of justice is meaningful component of maintaining a cohesive society, which is essential for an evolved social species such as us. It’s instinctive; we’re genetically predisposed via natural selection to follow the rules of the group.

seer
01-01-2016, 05:58 AM
Purposeless and meaningless to who? If god doesn't exist, would you rather live in a world without justice, without a moral system? Of course you wouldn't, it would be idiocy to say that you would. All you are concerned with seer is your continued and eternal existence, and therefore you need an ultimate meaning and purpose for your existence. Meaning and purpose are relative to the living, when your dead, your dead.

Of course like any animal I would like to live, and I personally would like to live in a particular kind of world, but the Communists and ISIS want to live in different kind of world. And my preference is objectively no more valid or moral than theirs.

seer
01-01-2016, 06:00 AM
Not at all! The administration of justice is meaningful component of maintaining a cohesive society, which is essential for an evolved social species such as us. It’s instinctive; we’re genetically predisposed via natural selection to follow the rules of the group.

A common religion or totalitarian rule can also be meaningful component of maintaining a cohesive society. So?

JimL
01-01-2016, 04:35 PM
Of course like any animal I would like to live, and I personally would like to live in a particular kind of world, but the Communists and ISIS want to live in different kind of world. And my preference is objectively no more valid or moral than theirs.
No, they don't want to live in a different kind of world, people are people and whether they live under communist rule, socialism, theocracy, or democracy, they all generally want the same things, its just that the best way of getting there is not known or agreed upon. Don't confuse the universal desire of the people with the systems created by those who have power over them. Like you said, everyone wants to live, and everyone wants to live well, those general preferences are universal. Unfortunately power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely to the point where those who have unchecked power use it for their own personal advantage rather than to the advantage of the people.

JimL
01-01-2016, 04:49 PM
A common religion or totalitarian rule can also be meaningful component of maintaining a cohesive society. So?

It could be. Like I said, in the end it is the rules that matter, not the maker of the rules. If the rules themselves are just and in the best interests of those living under them then where the rules come from wouldn't matter.

Tassman
01-01-2016, 11:08 PM
A common religion or totalitarian rule can also be meaningful component of maintaining a cohesive society. So?

Not really!

Totalitarian regimes can enforce their ideologies on the populace. But enforced conformity is not the same as a cohesive society. The latter comes from within. For a truly cohesive society the components binding it together must be acceptable to the members of said society and will contain quality of life issues such as sufficient income, a good environment, health care, decent education, leisure time, and a sense of social belonging. The less of these components, the less cohesive is the society and the more prone to violence it will be.

siam
01-02-2016, 09:51 PM
social cohesion and meaning---For any expression of "meaning", language is the first necessary component. Even if human values and desires/aspirations are universal, their expression may be various. For example, the pursuit of happiness is universal---how this is expressed and consequently how it is achieved may be various. Buddhism expresses the pursuit of happiness as the reduction of suffering---and consequently works on achieving such a result, Islam expresses the pursuit of happiness as the promotion of peace....etc....the end goal of everyone is the same but the language used to express and implement it makes it seem different.

Language is also helpful for "identity"---which is a necessary component of social cohesion. Human beings have individual identity (names) but it is the nature of human beings to be social/part of groups and groups also form identities. Group identities are not just labels that differentiate but can also be linked to the purpose of their existence and "purpose" identifies "meaning".

Tassman
01-02-2016, 10:21 PM
social cohesion and meaning---For any expression of "meaning", language is the first necessary component. Even if human values and desires/aspirations are universal, their expression may be various. For example, the pursuit of happiness is universal---how this is expressed and consequently how it is achieved may be various. Buddhism expresses the pursuit of happiness as the reduction of suffering---and consequently works on achieving such a result, Islam expresses the pursuit of happiness as the promotion of peace....etc....the end goal of everyone is the same but the language used to express and implement it makes it seem different.

No I think 'instincts' are the first necessary component. "Language" gives voice to our instinctive needs.


Language is also helpful for "identity"---which is a necessary component of social cohesion. Human beings have individual identity (names) but it is the nature of human beings to be social/part of groups

Yes, humans are an evolved social species and natural selection has resulted in social animals such as us living in groups. The opportunities for survival and reproduction are much better in groups than living alone.


and groups also form identities. Group identities are not just labels that differentiate but can also be linked to the purpose of their existence and "purpose" identifies "meaning".

And the role of groups is to promote their own interests resulting often in tribe against tribe, religion against religion and nation against nation.

The Thinker
01-04-2016, 01:46 PM
Two very stark views of mankind. In one men are just the accidental by product of the forces of nature, no ultimate purpose, no overriding justice - in reality no good or evil. In the other view men have a purpose, were created for a reason. And have a future - what we do here has eternal consequences raising our behavior to a level far beyond what is the case in a godless universe. Our behaviors are much more important because we are much more important.

Even if this were true, it doesn't make CS Lewis's view correct anymore than it would make Islam true because it made you happy. Bottom line: it's wishful thinking. Believing something because it makes you happy, or you want it to be true, doesn't make it true.

Now to some specifics.


"....no overriding justice..."

You couldn't even define "justice" when I challenged you to. Without a logically coherent definition, you have no basis to claim Christianity (or theism) gives you justice and atheism doesn't. "Justice" would be completely arbitrary, and thus, baseless.


".....in reality no good or evil...."

Again, you must define "good" and "evil" robustly and coherently otherwise this is just your opinion once again because it will be based on arbitrary definitions picked just to suit your particular theological inclinations.


In the other view men have a purpose, were created for a reason.

What if your purpose in life was to become a shoe shiner for 12 hours a day at minimum wage? Would you prefer this or to have no forced purpose on you at all and one you can decide for yourself? I personally never saw why purpose imposed from someone else would make anyone happy.


And have a future - what we do here has eternal consequences raising our behavior to a level far beyond what is the case in a godless universe.

If we're "saved" by faith, as Paul says in Gal 2, then I can rape and torture children for 50 years and get to heaven, while a humble Muslim who harmed no one gets eternal hell. So you're not even right here.


Our behaviors are much more important because we are much more important.

Another subjective claim based on a conclusion from an argument that isn't well defined beyond your subjective opinion. Try actually meeting the standards required by philosophers to make an argument and stop wasting everyone's time with your unsupported assertions.

The Thinker
01-04-2016, 02:41 PM
Was it the purpose of past species that went extinct to survive?

That is a much harder question to answer under theism than under naturalism. Why did 99.9% of all species ever to exist go extinct on the view that they and the universe they exist in were created by an infinitely loving, morally perfect being who can do and know everything logically possible?

seer
01-05-2016, 04:41 AM
You couldn't even define "justice" when I challenged you to. Without a logically coherent definition, you have no basis to claim Christianity (or theism) gives you justice and atheism doesn't. "Justice" would be completely arbitrary, and thus, baseless.

Nonsense, in your godless universe there is no ultimate justice, nor can there be. With God there certainly can be, even if could not fully define it. Our lack of knowledge would not change its existence nor make it arbitrary. You are again confusing ontology with epistemology. And of course the Christian can define justice. Those who love God and attempt to do good are rewarded, those who reject Him, are judged and perish.


If we're "saved" by faith, as Paul says in Gal 2, then I can rape and torture children for 50 years and get to heaven, while a humble Muslim who harmed no one gets eternal hell. So you're not even right here.

First Thinker, I lean towards a more inclusive view here, I don't think the Muslim you describe is necessarily lost. He will not be saved apart from Christ but there may be second chances. Second, does it bother you that God forgives? Would not justice also included the full reformation of the wicked man, if possible?

The Thinker
01-05-2016, 08:16 AM
Nonsense, in your godless universe there is no ultimate justice, nor can there be. With God there certainly can be, even if could not fully define it. Our lack of knowledge would not change its existence nor make it arbitrary. You are again confusing ontology with epistemology. And of course the Christian can define justice. Those who love God and attempt to do good are rewarded, those who reject Him, are judged and perish.

But if you cannot define "justice" then you have no right to claim god offers justice. What if god rewarded atheists for their skepticism and punished theists for their naivety and gullibility? Would you accept that as justice? Basically, all you've ever offered me is blank claim that god offers justice, but you have provided absolutely no definition or logical reasons to think that's true.

Second, I'm not at all confusing ontology with epistemology. We aren't debating ontology right now. Epistemically, you can't even know what justice is since you've utterly failed to define it. That means whatever god does, even if he rewards atheists and punishes theists, to you is "justice." If you claim that's impossible, then you must be making that claim from a theory of justice, which would force you to define justice so it isn't some arbitrary concoction.

Third, many Christians disagree with the idea that god rewards/punishes. The Lutheran view is that we are saved purely through faith, as Paul says in Galatians 2. Salvation is an act of mercy, because we all deserve hell, no matter how good we've behaved in this life. The famous apologist William Lane Craig actually wrote this to me:


Many, if not most, people think that Christianity teaches that salvation from sin and from eternal separation from God is the result of something we do--for example, loving one’s neighbor as oneself or doing to others as we would have them do to us or believing in Jesus--as a result of which God rewards us with forgiveness and eternal life. This is a terrible mistake. What biblical Christianity teaches, as the great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther came to see, after years of vainly struggling to earn God’s approval, is that salvation is wholly by God’s grace. That means God’s unmerited favor. There is nothing we can do to earn God’s forgiveness and merit eternal life. The Bible says that all our righteous acts are like filthy rags compared to God’s awesome holiness.

You have no way of knowing whether this view is right over yours. And also what if someone does "good" but doesn't love god, or your god? And what is good? You've never defined that. How is someone supposed to know what's good and what isn't in order to get this "reward"?



First Thinker, I lean towards a more inclusive view here, I don't think the Muslim you describe is necessarily lost. He will not be saved apart from Christ but there may be second chances. Second, does it bother you that God forgives? Would not justice also included the full reformation of the wicked man, if possible?

Why is believing a condition that must be met in order to avoid being "lost"? Why should believing silly things be a factor in how one's afterlife is? And also, if actions are a factor, then you need to logically explain libertarian free will which you haven't. You've only just asserted it.

To your second point, if god exists, and wants us to "know him" and believe in him and worship him, as almost every theist has told me, then why make the rules on this so confusing? Are we "saved" from (1) faith, (2) faith + works, (3) just works, or (4) something else? The Bible isn't even clear on this.

seer
01-05-2016, 08:45 AM
But if you cannot define "justice" then you have no right to claim god offers justice. What if god rewarded atheists for their skepticism and punished theists for their naivety and gullibility? Would you accept that as justice? Basically, all you've ever offered me is blank claim that god offers justice, but you have provided absolutely no definition or logical reasons to think that's true.

I'm not asking you to believe it is true, since you are a sinner and sin makes you irrational. And yes, I certainly can claim that God is just even if I can not define His justice in totality.


Second, I'm not at all confusing ontology with epistemology. We aren't debating ontology right now. Epistemically, you can't even know what justice is since you've utterly failed to define it. That means whatever god does, even if he rewards atheists and punishes theists, to you is "justice." If you claim that's impossible, then you must be making that claim from a theory of justice, which would force you to define justice so it isn't some arbitrary concoction.

But I did define justice. And yes, it impossible for God to lie to us, about whom will or will not be saved.


Third, many Christians disagree with the idea that god rewards/punishes. The Lutheran view is that we are saved purely through faith, as Paul says in Galatians 2. Salvation is an act of mercy, because we all deserve hell, no matter how good we've behaved in this life. The famous apologist William Lane Craig actually wrote this to me:

Again, what is your point? God rewards those who love Him, and have faith in Him, and rejects those who reject Him. That is justice/just.




You have no way of knowing whether this view is right over yours. And also what if someone does "good" but doesn't love god, or your god? And what is good? You've never defined that. How is someone supposed to know what's good and what isn't in order to get this "reward"?

Since God is by definition just, He will always do what is right - so even if I don't understand every aspect.




Why is believing a condition that must be met in order to avoid being "lost"? Why should believing silly things be a factor in how one's afterlife is? And also, if actions are a factor, then you need to logically explain libertarian free will which you haven't. You've only just asserted it.

Loving God, is what connects us to God, that is the outgrowth of faith, just as works are the natural outgrowth of faith. Men are not saved by works, works points to our faith in God and love for him. And our love for God and His love for us are not silly things - they are everything. Love is at the core of the universe and currency of Heaven. Love is what unites us to the source of everlasting life, and apart from that connection we will wither and die.

The Thinker
01-05-2016, 10:44 AM
I'm not asking you to believe it is true, since you are a sinner and sin makes you irrational. And yes, I certainly can claim that God is just even if I can not define His justice in totality.

Since on the Christian view we're all sinners, then you're irrational too. And yes, you can simply just assert god is just, without out any logical justification, just like you do with all your other views, as we all have seen in the past.


But I did define justice. And yes, it impossible for God to lie to us, about whom will or will not be saved.

No you didn't. Where is your definition?


Again, what is your point? God rewards those who love Him, and have faith in Him, and rejects those who reject Him. That is justice/just.

My point is that many PhD level theologians disagree with you, and so you cannot even show your view is true. You just assert it like you do everything else.



Since God is by definition just, He will always do what is right - so even if I don't understand every aspect.

So if he rewards atheists and punishes believers, that would be just?




Loving God, is what connects us to God, that is the outgrowth of faith, just as works are the natural outgrowth of faith. Men are not saved by works, works points to our faith in God and love for him. And our love for God and His love for us are not silly things - they are everything. Love is at the core of the universe and currency of Heaven. Love is what unites us to the source of everlasting life, and apart from that connection we will wither and die.

That doesn't really answer the question. Why is loving your version of god good and not other versions of god? How can love be at the core of the universe when 99.9% of all species went extinct? It is silly to believe this was the genius design of a loving, perfect, omni-god. Just as it is silly to believe god's genius idea was to sacrifice himself, to himself, in order to save a species of evolved primates, from himself, by impregnating an under-age virgin.

Mikeenders
01-05-2016, 07:30 PM
That is a much harder question to answer under theism than under naturalism. Why did 99.9% of all species ever to exist go extinct on the view that they and the universe they exist in were created by an infinitely loving, morally perfect being who can do and know everything logically possible?

Its a harder question only if we assume your idea of theism is correct and a moral, infinitely loving God extends his infinite love and morality to animals - something none of the major religions of the world have historically maintained.



It is silly to believe this was the genius design of a loving, perfect, omni-god.

Theres nothing to support the claim that a genius loving God has to care about animal or plant life becoming extinct. If his goal (as in Christianity) is a temporary system to support the interface with himself and man the rest is trappings.


Just as it is silly to believe god's genius idea was to sacrifice himself, to himself, in order to save a species of evolved primates, from himself, by impregnating an under-age virgin

Nothing even remotely silly about it, Like most atheists you lack context and depth on theology so you come to trivial conclusions. If your purpose is to express the depth of your love the plan is pure genius. You create a system whereby you are required to die to show how much you are willing to sacrifice (but can't actually exterminate yourself as God without destroying who you love). So you take on the form of a man and show that greater love.

The under age part is just vacant silliness by the way. She was engaged - of marrying age in her culture. That kind of sensational gibberish theatrics doesn't make for rational conversation.

Tassman
01-05-2016, 11:30 PM
Its a harder question only if we assume your idea of theism is correct and a moral, infinitely loving God extends his infinite love and morality to animals - something none of the major religions of the world have historically maintained.

Well, according to the legend, your infinitely loving god extends his infinite love and morality to at least one animal, namely the human animal.


Theres nothing to support the claim that a genius loving God has to care about animal or plant life becoming extinct. If his goal (as in Christianity) is a temporary system to support the interface with himself and man the rest is trappings.

Nothing even remotely silly about it, Like most atheists you lack context and depth on theology so you come to trivial conclusions. If your purpose is to express the depth of your love the plan is pure genius. You create a system whereby you are required to die to show how much you are willing to sacrifice (but can't actually exterminate yourself as God without destroying who you love). So you take on the form of a man and show that greater love.

The under age part is just vacant silliness by the way. She was engaged - of marrying age in her culture. That kind of sensational gibberish theatrics doesn't make for rational conversation.

You don't think it silly that a deity has to put on a theatrical performance to save his creation from himself. I do. I think it has all the hallmarks of a folk tale.

Mikeenders
01-06-2016, 05:31 AM
Well, according to the legend, your infinitely loving god extends his infinite love and morality to at least one animal, namely the human animal.

Circular. You assume a human is just an animal so get to the conclusion that you wish to get to which is an atheistic one to begin with. According to "the legend" a human is not just an animal. Thats not up for debate. That is what "the legend" claims so in order to make rational points about the thought process you hsve to apply yourself to that context.




You don't think it silly that a deity has to put on a theatrical performance to save his creation from himself. I do. I think it has all the hallmarks of a folk tale.

What you think is immaterial except to you. In a two way conversation going on outside your head you have to apply yourself to proving the premise. Once you get outside your head the premise that a person would wish to show their love to someone else is in no world silly. There is no theatrical performance. You assume again from a materialistic viewpoint that Morals , justice etc don't exist or that God is not bound to them so you interpret it as a save from himself scenario where it is more about integrity and being bound to a code of action similar to how a judge might rule on a case where he has emotional family connections (although in human terms we would excuse such a judge - God can't excuse himself to another)

JimL
01-06-2016, 11:42 AM
Circular. You assume a human is just an animal so get to the conclusion that you wish to get to which is an atheistic one to begin with. According to "the legend" a human is not just an animal. Thats not up for debate. That is what "the legend" claims so in order to make rational points about the thought process you hsve to apply yourself to that context.
You are right Mike, that is not up for debate, humans are definitely animals.





What you think is immaterial except to you. In a two way conversation going on outside your head you have to apply yourself to proving the premise. Once you get outside your head the premise that a person would wish to show their love to someone else is in no world silly. There is no theatrical performance. You assume again from a materialistic viewpoint that Morals , justice etc don't exist or that God is not bound to them so you interpret it as a save from himself scenario where it is more about integrity and being bound to a code of action similar to how a judge might rule on a case where he has emotional family connections (although in human terms we would excuse such a judge - God can't excuse himself to another)
Morals and justice exist, they just don't exist in and of themselves. Morals and the justice applied to the abuse thereof are relative to human beings and so need not be objectively sourced.

seer
01-06-2016, 12:34 PM
You are right Mike, that is not up for debate, humans are definitely animals.

Right and when the Europeans came to North America and decimated the native population and took their land it was just animals being animals, no big deal.

JimL
01-06-2016, 02:05 PM
Right and when the Europeans came to North America and decimated the native population and took their land it was just animals being animals, no big deal.
Thats correct, thats the point Tass has been making. Morals don't necessarily pertain to those outside the group. Thats why the Israelites had no problem mercilously killing and pillaging from those outside of their own tribe. Moral behavior is behavior thats in the best interests of humanity, but when you don't consider that all of mankind is part of the human community, your morals can easily go right out the window, so to speak. But eventually they, the Israelites, got a taste of their own inhumanity. The smaller the world gets the more dangerous mans inhumanity to man becomes. Again though seer, moral behaviors that are in the best interests of humanity need have nothing to do with an objective source or ultimate justice.

siam
01-06-2016, 11:09 PM
...Moral behavior is behavior thats in the best interests of humanity, but when you don't consider that all of mankind is part of the human community, your morals can easily go right out the window, so to speak.

That is why "Right Belief" is an important starting point---If we have an incorrect or inadequate understanding of "human being" we will arrive at an incorrect/inadequate ethical/moral principles....resulting in inequity/injustice.....If---"best interests of humanity" is the ultimate goal---then the starting point has to be the "Concept of Equality"---the inherent equivalent value of all human beings. Only within the framework of this fundamental principle can any ethical/moral system be coherent, consistent, and comprehensive....
Ethical Justice cannot result without the starting point of inherent Equality of all humanity.....

Tassman
01-07-2016, 02:06 AM
Circular. You assume a human is just an animal so get to the conclusion that you wish to get to which is an atheistic one to begin with. According to "the legend" a human is not just an animal. Thats not up for debate. That is what "the legend" claims so in order to make rational points about the thought process you hsve to apply yourself to that context.

There’s no need to “assume” that humans are “just animals”, we know that they are. This is not in doubt. The unwarranted assumption occurs when you claim that they are more than just animals.


What you think is immaterial except to you. In a two way conversation going on outside your head you have to apply yourself to proving the premise. Once you get outside your head the premise that a person would wish to show their love to someone else is in no world silly. There is no theatrical performance. You assume again from a materialistic viewpoint that Morals , justice etc don't exist or that God is not bound to them so you interpret it as a save from himself scenario where it is more about integrity and being bound to a code of action similar to how a judge might rule on a case where he has emotional family connections (although in human terms we would excuse such a judge - God can't excuse himself to another)

Persons wishing to show their love to someone else is far from silly, it the core instinct of social species such as us. What’s silly is the notion of the ‘fall of man’ and the requirement for atonement. This is what has all the hallmarks of a folk tale.

Tassman
01-07-2016, 02:09 AM
Right and when the Europeans came to North America and decimated the native population and took their land it was just animals being animals, no big deal.

...and the Europeans were Christian animals furthermore, tsk, tsk, tsk. You've just reinforced the point that the human animal, like all pack hunters or social predators, takes care of its own and attacks outsiders.

JimL
01-07-2016, 03:12 AM
That is why "Right Belief" is an important starting point---If we have an incorrect or inadequate understanding of "human being" we will arrive at an incorrect/inadequate ethical/moral principles....resulting in inequity/injustice.....If---"best interests of humanity" is the ultimate goal---then the starting point has to be the "Concept of Equality"---the inherent equivalent value of all human beings. Only within the framework of this fundamental principle can any ethical/moral system be coherent, consistent, and comprehensive....
Ethical Justice cannot result without the starting point of inherent Equality of all humanity.....
That true, but it depends upon what you mean by "right belief."I wouldn't call 'equality" an objectively inherent quality, but that it is in our best interests as individuals and as a species to, as the adage goes, do unto others as we would have done to ourselves. In other words moral behavior towards one another is right belief, or the right way to behave, because it is in our best interests, not in our best interests because morality or moral codes exist objectively. Morals are relative to the best interests of humanity and so need no objective source.

Mikeenders
01-07-2016, 04:33 AM
You are right Mike, that is not up for debate, humans are definitely animals.

Yawn... the minority blusters. Call me when you can elect a president thats an atheist. Its not debatable that most of the world considers humans more than animals and believe in God so your claims are vacant and demonstrably vacant..




Morals and justice exist, they just don't exist in and of themselves.


Congratulations. You 've pointed out what no one claims otherwise. even in theism morality and justice do no t just float in space but are attached to God and intelligent life forms


Morals and the justice applied to the abuse thereof are relative to human beings and so need not be objectively sourced.

Nothing limits morality and justice to humans - even in your materialist framework humans need not be alone in the universe capable of such. In fact as materialist your claims are nonsense. since everything is material to you then morality and justice are actually physical properties/states.

At any rate its off point and you have only underlined the reason why - theres no reason to apply morality and love to the treatment of animals- so the the thinker's premise it is harder to consider extinction as a theist is defeated.

seer
01-07-2016, 04:42 AM
...and the Europeans were Christian animals furthermore, tsk, tsk, tsk. You've just reinforced the point that the human animal, like all pack hunters or social predators, takes care of its own and attacks outsiders.

Well Tass, according to you we are all determined to act as we do anyways. So there is no big deal about what the Europeans did - just animals being animals.

Mikeenders
01-07-2016, 04:59 AM
There’s no need to “assume” that humans are “just animals”, we know that they are. This is not in doubt. The unwarranted assumption occurs when you claim that they are more than just animals.

As I said before - just empty bluster not an intelligent point. A minority position (such as atheism is) is incapable of declaring anything settled or not in doubt. The assumption is entirely warranted and the only real answer to the reasons why it is warranted is a long line of just so stories. From the appreciation of beauty, to the conceptualization of morality , to high level intelligence, to emotions, to the concept of purpose and even the capability of grasping the mathematical language of the universe Humans are way beyond animals. These things truly are indisputable and each one of them requires from you a just so story. So therefore in comparison to other animals humans cannot be considered just animals in the same way an automobile is not just a four wheel cart.

You've failed to make the case that theism has any harder time dealing with extinction for creatures It maintains (logically) are not in a league with humans. Perhaps try something else. You've dead ended here



Persons wishing to show their love to someone else is far from silly, it the core instinct of social species such as us. What’s silly is the notion of the ‘fall of man’ and the requirement for atonement. This is what has all the hallmarks of a folk tale.

As expected the answer flew over your head. Theres nothing silly about a judge requiring himself to abide by a standard, recognize and allow free will and then in love seek a remedy for those standards when they are breached by free will. Atonement means nothing but death and if you wanted to demonstrate your love for someone the act of dying for them (to the only extent that you can) is not silly but noble. I realized this higher level thinking on morality, justice and free will particularly in regard to consequences is not something atheists are very competent in but lack of competence is not an evidence against a thing. Its more an evidence against the person lacking the competence to grasp it.

Mikeenders
01-07-2016, 05:08 AM
Well Tass, according to you we are all determined to act as we do anyways. So there is no big deal about what the Europeans did - just animals being animals.

The true wonder of illogic to behold in this thread is they are simultaneously holding that morality is subjective to humans while at the same time claiming their own concept of morality must apply to God and must be extended to all creatures they see fit so as to make extinctions a problem for theism.

Pure twaddle

However it usually is whenever atheists get into theology

seer
01-07-2016, 05:15 AM
The true wonder of illogic to behold in this thread is they are simultaneously holding that morality is subjective to humans while at the same time claiming their own concept of morality must apply to God and must be extended to all creatures they see fit so as to make extinctions a problem for theism.

Pure twaddle

However it usually is whenever atheists get into theology

Right...

Tassman
01-07-2016, 11:06 PM
Well Tass, according to you we are all determined to act as we do anyways. So there is no big deal about what the Europeans did - just animals being animals.

And as always, despite endless corrections, you persist in confusing 'fatalism' with 'causal determinism'.

Tassman
01-07-2016, 11:45 PM
As I said before - just empty bluster not an intelligent point. A minority position (such as atheism is) is incapable of declaring anything settled or not in doubt.

Ah, the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.


The assumption is entirely warranted and the only real answer to the reasons why it is warranted is a long line of just so stories. From the appreciation of beauty, to the conceptualization of morality , to high level intelligence, to emotions, to the concept of purpose and even the capability of grasping the mathematical language of the universe Humans are way beyond animals. These things truly are indisputable and each one of them requires from you a just so story. So therefore in comparison to other animals humans cannot be considered just animals in the same way an automobile is not just a four wheel cart.

Bald assertion fallacy!

Human beings are intelligent apes, there are no grounds for saying they’re more than this…your folk tales don’t count as contrary evidence.


You've failed to make the case that theism has any harder time dealing with extinction for creatures It maintains (logically) are not in a league with humans. Perhaps try something else. You've dead ended here

You’re the one claiming the existence of a deity; the burden of proof rests with you.


As expected the answer flew over your head. Theres nothing silly about a judge requiring himself to abide by a standard,

Judges exist, deities do not.


recognize and allow free will and then in love seek a remedy for those standards when they are breached by free will.

Libertarian free will is logically incoherent, i.e. it cannot logically exist.


Atonement means nothing but death

"Atonement" means becoming at one with god, you ignorant fool. The clue is in the word itself: at-one-ment.


and if you wanted to demonstrate your love for someone the act of dying for them (to the only extent that you can) is not silly but noble.

…yes a folk tale about noble behaviour.


I realized this higher level thinking :rofl:


on morality,

Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection.


justice

Justice consists of enforcing accepted rules of behaviour.


and free will particularly in regard to consequences

Libertarian free will is logically incoherent.


is not something atheists are very competent in but lack of competence is not an evidence against a thing. Its more an evidence against the person lacking the competence to grasp it.

Typical theist bluster!


Yawn... the minority blusters. Call me when you can elect a president thats an atheist.

Australia has had several atheist prime ministers, including the most popular ever PM, Bob Hawke. Many countries have had atheist leaders.


Its not debatable that most of the world considers humans more than animals and believe in God so your claims are vacant and demonstrably vacant..

argumentum ad populum logical fallacy!

Mikeenders
01-08-2016, 04:57 AM
Ah, the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.

I see you love embarassing yourself. Perhaps go pick up a basic book on logic? or take a class. If someone claims an issue is settled or not in doubt only if you have fallen on your head one too many times is it fallacious to point out that in the minds of the majority its not. its more fallacious to proclaim as the minority that an issue is settled. Lets see if you can improve in basic thinking




Human beings are intelligent apes, there are no grounds for saying they’re more than this…your folk tales don’t count as contrary evidence.

Nope no improvement just vacant stupidity. Even if you could trace every difference in a human being to intelligence it would mean quite a lot of difference is wrapped up in the word intelligence. Emotions, sense of purpose, appreciation of beauty. logic, need for purpose and on and on. this isn't folk tales. These are real differences than make for vast differences no matter how you slice it. Babble on some more because you have nothing else.

Lets seee......anything of even average intelligence in your last post..... ?




You’re the one claiming the existence of a deity; the burden of proof rests with you.

Nope just more vacant but popular among atheist twaddle. Rather embarrassing when you think about it. The side that has proponents claiming everything came out of nothing and that ultimately nothing has a beginning arguing furiously to no avail to the populace that theirs is the defacto position that requires no burden of proof. Thats why most of the world laughs at you

lets see more twaddle and then twaddle

oh this was particularly hilarious



"Atonement" means becoming at one with god, you ignorant fool. The clue is in the word itself: at-one-ment.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......ROFL :lol::rofl:

Kiddie land come back and PURE stupidity that anyone would think thats how you come to an understanding of what a word entails
atonement is how God reconciles people to himself on the basis of a standard - like how a judge might pay for his child's fine if that child should come before him in court rather than immorally declare the child innocent when he isn't. In Christianity atonement includes dealing with the child's sins not dismissing them or waving them off you moron. In Christianity it IS all about the death of the messiah addressing those sins. Go and learn something of what you are talking about. There are LITERALLY five year olds in Sunday school who know more on the subject than you do - have them give you a class so you stop embarrassing yourself.




Australia has had several atheist prime ministers, including the most popular ever PM, Bob Hawke. Many countries have had atheist leaders.


Who cares not in my super power country and in just about every global poll you lose and can't hit double digits. since you lose and can't think worth a dime to have a discussion further with ......

You are dismissed kid but thanks for the laughs

seer
01-08-2016, 05:04 AM
And as always, despite endless corrections, you persist in confusing 'fatalism' with 'causal determinism'.

Nope, I already proved your wrong by definition:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8244-Science-of-Morality&p=274366&viewfull=1#post274366

JimL
01-08-2016, 10:54 AM
Yawn... the minority blusters. Call me when you can elect a president thats an atheist. Its not debatable that most of the world considers humans more than animals and believe in God so your claims are vacant and demonstrably vacant..
So, whatever the majority believes must be true, is that how your mind works? Get back to me when you can make an argument based on the evidence.





Congratulations. You 've pointed out what no one claims otherwise. even in theism morality and justice do no t just float in space but are attached to God and intelligent life forms.
What do you mean by "attached"? Is god ruled, aka determined, by his own nature? Besides that Mike, you seem to have a comprehension problem. In theism morals exist as objective facts because, as seer would put it, they flow from gods moral nature. In reality they exist as objective facts because they are relative to the best interests of life with respect to the world in which that life exists.



Nothing limits morality and justice to humans - even in your materialist framework humans need not be alone in the universe capable of such. In fact as materialist your claims are nonsense. since everything is material to you then morality and justice are actually physical properties/states.
As stated above, you have a comprehension problem. Morals are not existing things with physical properties. Morals don't exist in themselves or in anything else, they are conceptual.

At any rate its off point and you have only underlined the reason why - theres no reason to apply morality and love to the treatment of animals- so the the thinker's premise it is harder to consider extinction as a theist is defeated.
You'll have to unpack that one for me, its a bit unclear.

siam
01-08-2016, 08:09 PM
That true, but it depends upon what you mean by "right belief."I wouldn't call 'equality" an objectively inherent quality, but that it is in our best interests as individuals and as a species to, as the adage goes, do unto others as we would have done to ourselves. In other words moral behavior towards one another is right belief, or the right way to behave, because it is in our best interests, not in our best interests because morality or moral codes exist objectively. Morals are relative to the best interests of humanity and so need no objective source.

Behavior is not belief---one is an action/conduct the other is a set of abstract propositions.
Intent links behavior/conduct with belief.
Personally, I think it is irrelevant that moral codes are subjective or objective---the more pertinent question is if they (moral codes) are correct or incorrect....and to some extent, the answer to this question depends on the environment in which these codes/rules are implemented. Human nature dictates that some ethical/moral principles are Universal, while some are particular...and even among those ethico-moral principles that are universal, their interpretation and implementation may be particular.....

If the "best interest of humanity" is the criteria for judging moral codes as correct/incorrect...then we need to consider the interdependence and interactions of human nature and nature (natural laws). A definition of human nature as an "animal" would inadequately reflect human beings---at the very least we need to say "thinking animal"---because ethico-moral principles are formed, understood, and implemented in human society based on 2 aspects of human nature---his instincts/intuition and his intellect/reasoning. As "thinking animals", not only do we attempt to observe, analyse, understand Nature, we are affected by and effect Nature/Ecology

One view of Nature/Ecology would be the two forces of a) abundance (Khair) and b) restriction (Sharr)---the vicissitudes between these two states creates change/dynamism, but nature tries to achieve equilibrium (balance/harmony) and always moves in that direction. Equilibrium (balance/harmony) contributes to a state of stability (peace). Both the forces of change and stability are necessary and need to be in tension with each other---too much of one or the other and the system will collapse either because too much change will make it spiral into chaos or too much stability will make it stagnate....Since human beings are effected by nature and affect nature---our survival/"best interests" also depends on Nature/Ecology.

Therefore, a paradigm that takes into consideration human nature as well as the environment that human beings occupy will reflect a more wholistic understanding of reality and the ethico-moral principles based on such may yield a more correct path towards achieving "the best interests" of Humanity.

Some theistic paradigms do provide such a framework---In some Eastern and Abrahamic religions, the concept of Oneness/Unity extends not only to the conception of the unity of humanity but also the unity between nature and humanity. Both are essential for the formulation of a good ethico-moral system. One is the basis for understanding the concept of inherent equality and the other is necessary for acknowledging the responsibility of humanity towards nature (all of God's creation).

Tassman
01-08-2016, 09:54 PM
Nope, I already proved your wrong by definition:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8244-Science-of-Morality&p=274366&viewfull=1#post274366

I’ve never said that the outcomes of both Fatalism and Determinism are not inevitable. It’s the means of getting there that are demonstrably different. Determinism, on the human scale, gives us the illusion of free will. Living creatures like us act on the basis that this illusion is real, thus enabling us to make effective choices.

Conversely, your preferred alternative of Libertarian Free Will is logically incoherent. It necessitates freedom from causation and this is logical nonsense. Even if LFW was miraculously implanted by a deity it’s still logically incoherent. It could only function in a capricious universe that's not governed by the laws and constants of nature...but we have empirical evidence that the universe is governed by these laws.

Tassman
01-08-2016, 11:28 PM
I see you love embarassing yourself. Perhaps go pick up a basic book on logic? or take a class. If someone claims an issue is settled or not in doubt only if you have fallen on your head one too many times is it fallacious to point out that in the minds of the majority its not. its more fallacious to proclaim as the minority that an issue is settled. Lets see if you can improve in basic thinking

The majority once believed in a geocentric universe; they were wrong. I repeat, your claim is argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.


Nope no improvement just vacant stupidity. Even if you could trace every difference in a human being to intelligence it would mean quite a lot of difference is wrapped up in the word intelligence. Emotions, sense of purpose, appreciation of beauty. logic, need for purpose and on and on. this isn't folk tales. These are real differences than make for vast differences no matter how you slice it. Babble on some more because you have nothing else.

Lets seee......anything of even average intelligence in your last post..... ?

You've not supported your assertion that the human primate is different in kind from other primates. There’s no good evidence to support this claim.


Nope just more vacant but popular among atheist twaddle. Rather embarrassing when you think about it. The side that has proponents claiming everything came out of nothing and that ultimately nothing has a beginning arguing furiously to no avail to the populace that theirs is the defacto position that requires no burden of proof. Thats why most of the world laughs at you

lets see more twaddle and then twaddle

You’re the one claiming the existence of a deity; the burden of proof rests with you. There’s considerable evidence supporting the material universe.



oh this was particularly hilarious

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......ROFL :lol::rofl:

Kiddie land come back and PURE stupidity that anyone would think thats how you come to an understanding of what a word entails
atonement is how God reconciles people to himself on the basis of a standard - like how a judge might pay for his child's fine if that child should come before him in court rather than immorally declare the child innocent when he isn't. In Christianity atonement includes dealing with the child's sins not dismissing them or waving them off you moron. In Christianity it IS all about the death of the messiah addressing those sins. Go and learn something of what you are talking about. There are LITERALLY five year olds in Sunday school who know more on the subject than you do - have them give you a class so you stop embarrassing yourself.

Leaving aside he absurdity of a deity offering himself to save the world from himself, you've yet to establish that a deity so much as even exists.


Who cares not in my super power country and in just about every global poll you lose and can't hit double digits. since you lose and can't think worth a dime to have a discussion further with ......

You are dismissed kid but thanks for the laughs

Your “super power country” is statistically the most violent and inequitable country in the developed world.

JimL
01-09-2016, 02:45 AM
Behavior is not belief---one is an action/conduct the other is a set of abstract propositions.
Intent links behavior/conduct with belief.
Personally, I think it is irrelevant that moral codes are subjective or objective---the more pertinent question is if they (moral codes) are correct or incorrect....and to some extent, the answer to this question depends on the environment in which these codes/rules are implemented. Human nature dictates that some ethical/moral principles are Universal, while some are particular...and even among those ethico-moral principles that are universal, their interpretation and implementation may be particular.....

If the "best interest of humanity" is the criteria for judging moral codes as correct/incorrect...then we need to consider the interdependence and interactions of human nature and nature (natural laws). A definition of human nature as an "animal" would inadequately reflect human beings---at the very least we need to say "thinking animal"---because ethico-moral principles are formed, understood, and implemented in human society based on 2 aspects of human nature---his instincts/intuition and his intellect/reasoning. As "thinking animals", not only do we attempt to observe, analyse, understand Nature, we are affected by and effect Nature/Ecology

One view of Nature/Ecology would be the two forces of a) abundance (Khair) and b) restriction (Sharr)---the vicissitudes between these two states creates change/dynamism, but nature tries to achieve equilibrium (balance/harmony) and always moves in that direction. Equilibrium (balance/harmony) contributes to a state of stability (peace). Both the forces of change and stability are necessary and need to be in tension with each other---too much of one or the other and the system will collapse either because too much change will make it spiral into chaos or too much stability will make it stagnate....Since human beings are effected by nature and affect nature---our survival/"best interests" also depends on Nature/Ecology.

Therefore, a paradigm that takes into consideration human nature as well as the environment that human beings occupy will reflect a more wholistic understanding of reality and the ethico-moral principles based on such may yield a more correct path towards achieving "the best interests" of Humanity.

Some theistic paradigms do provide such a framework---In some Eastern and Abrahamic religions, the concept of Oneness/Unity extends not only to the conception of the unity of humanity but also the unity between nature and humanity. Both are essential for the formulation of a good ethico-moral system. One is the basis for understanding the concept of inherent equality and the other is necessary for acknowledging the responsibility of humanity towards nature (all of God's creation).
I think that I am in agreement with the gist of what you say, accept that the concept of Oneness/Unity of nature and humanity is not just a concept, its a fact, and as a fact it is not dependent upon creation or a creator. All of what you said above could have just as well been said without the attributing that Oneness/Unity of nature and humanity to a creator god.

seer
01-09-2016, 04:01 AM
I’ve never said that the outcomes of both Fatalism and Determinism are not inevitable. It’s the means of getting there that are demonstrably different. Determinism, on the human scale, gives us the illusion of free will. Living creatures like us act on the basis that this illusion is real, thus enabling us to make effective choices.

It doesn't matter Tass, a definition of fatalism is when all events are inevitable, whether we make choices or not. So I'm not "confusing 'fatalism' with 'causal determinism'." Determinism is fatalistic by definition.

Tassman
01-09-2016, 08:45 PM
It doesn't matter Tass, a definition of fatalism is when all events are inevitable, whether we make choices or not. So I'm not "confusing 'fatalism' with 'causal determinism'." Determinism is fatalistic by definition.

Answered many times by myself and others such as The Thinker.

What has NOT been explained, despite numerous requests, is your preferred alternative of Libertarian Free Will, which is logically incoherent. LFW necessitates freedom from causation and this is logical nonsense. Even if LFW was miraculously implanted by a deity it’s still logically incoherent. It could only function in a capricious universe where events don't have causes and which is not governed by the laws and constants of nature...but we have empirical evidence that the universe IS governed by these natural laws. So please explain!

seer
01-10-2016, 05:12 AM
Answered many times by myself and others such as The Thinker.

You do not get to make up your own definitions Tass, neither does Thinker:


Fatalism

Fa"tal*ism (?), n. [Cf. F. fatalisme.] The doctrine that all things are subject to fate, or that they take place by inevitable necessity.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resourc...ism&use1913=on

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/fatalism

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fatalism?rdfrom=Fatalism

If all events take place by inevitable necessity (which you believe), then that is the very definition of fatalism.

Truthseeker
01-10-2016, 01:45 PM
Let's just use "determinism" and forget "fatalism."

Tassman
01-10-2016, 05:44 PM
You do not get to make up your own definitions Tass, neither does Thinker:



If all events take place by inevitable necessity (which you believe), then that is the very definition of fatalism.

Sigh!

Your argument appears to be that because you don't like the notion of Determinism (or even Fatalism, as you insist upon misrepresenting it) it can't be true. Your problem is that Causal Determinism is the only logically coherent way of viewing the universe and our place in it...as well as that of every other living creature.

You witter on about Gods gift of Libertarian Free will to his favourite creatures, i.e. humans, whilst blithely ignoring the fact that this necessitates freedom from causation. And this argument is logical nonsense.

In short, your argument is logically incoherent...it's pure wish fulfilment. Libertarian Free will cannot exist, only the illusion of it exists and it's on this basis that living creatures such as us make choices and go about our lives.

Truthseeker
01-10-2016, 06:43 PM
Your argument appears to be that because you don't like the notion of Determinism (or even Fatalism, as you insist upon misrepresenting it) it can't be true. Your problem is that Causal Determinism is the only logically coherent way of viewing the universe and our place in it...as well as that of every other living creature.
If that is so, any person's life ought to be predictable . . . Seer, JimL, etc. Hey, JimL, did you ever think about predicting your life?

Tassman
01-10-2016, 10:54 PM
If that is so, any person's life ought to be predictable . . . Seer, JimL, etc. Hey, JimL, did you ever think about predicting your life?

Insufficient information!

seer
01-11-2016, 05:48 AM
Sigh!

Your argument appears to be that because you don't like the notion of Determinism (or even Fatalism, as you insist upon misrepresenting it) it can't be true. Your problem is that Causal Determinism is the only logically coherent way of viewing the universe and our place in it...as well as that of every other living creature.

Nonsense Tass, first I am not misrepresenting anything, second, we do not live in a deterministic universe but a probabilistic universe.


In short, your argument is logically incoherent...it's pure wish fulfilment. Libertarian Free will cannot exist, only the illusion of it exists and it's on this basis that living creatures such as us make choices and go about our lives.

And Joel is doing a good job of defending LFW: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?9267-Is-libertarian-free-will-coherent&p=279817&viewfull=1#post279817

And the larger point - how can you as a determinist ever really know when you were determined to believe a truth or falsehood that is presented as a truth?

Truthseeker
01-11-2016, 01:35 PM
Insufficient information!That is the same as no or a lack of evidence. Many times people like you cite that as a reason not to believe in leprechauns, magic unicorns, ghosts, etc. So, why not also the hypothesis that the universe is not wholly determinist?

Tassman
01-11-2016, 09:08 PM
That is the same as no or a lack of evidence. Many times people like you cite that as a reason not to believe in leprechauns, magic unicorns, ghosts, etc. So, why not also the hypothesis that the universe is not wholly determinist?

You misunderstand! We don't have the knowledge of the causal chain of every molecule and particle dating from the Big Bang until now. Hence we cannot predict the determined outcomes of our lives except in the most general terms.

Tassman
01-11-2016, 09:32 PM
Nonsense Tass, first I am not misrepresenting anything,

Well yes you are with your conflation of Determinism and Fatalism, as has been pointed out many times.


second, we do not live in a deterministic universe but a probabilistic universe.

No we live in a deterministic universe. E.g. based on the laws of physics the outcome of tossing a coin is predetermined the moment you toss it into the air due to its velocity, spin, and starting position,. This can only appear probabilistic if there's a slight variation in the starting condition. But if the initial conditions are absolutely identical, a coin must land on the same side every time.

The same applies to us…our decisions are the work of chemicals in the brain activating in the right order. Our decisions and thoughts are predetermined by biology and the laws of physics. How could it be otherwise? Prove me wrong. If we have Libertarian Free Will, how and when did it evolve? Still waiting!


And Joel is doing a good job of defending LFW: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?9267-Is-libertarian-free-will-coherent&p=279817&viewfull=1#post279817

The Thinker is doing a much better job refuting him.

You have yet to explain how your argument can be logically coherent. Libertarian Free will cannot exist, only the illusion of it exists and it's on this basis that living creatures such as us make choices and go about their lives.


And the larger point - how can you as a determinist ever really know when you were determined to believe a truth or falsehood that is presented as a truth?

In a Deterministic universe (as opposed to a Fatalistic one) 'choices' are an essential component of the causal chain. We’re demonstrably capable of making effective choices and have the capacity to empirically test and verify the truth or falsehood of that which is presented as a truth. Once again we live in a Causally Determined universe, not a Fatalistic one.

seer
01-12-2016, 05:31 AM
In a Deterministic universe (as opposed to a Fatalistic one) 'choices' are an essential component of the causal chain. We’re demonstrably capable of making effective choices and have the capacity to empirically test and verify the truth or falsehood of that which is presented as a truth. Once again we live in a Causally Determined universe, not a Fatalistic one.

Nonsense, in your deterministic universe you have no actual choice in what you conclude to be empirical, what you consider evidence, or the conclusions you come to.

Tassman
01-12-2016, 07:14 PM
Nonsense, in your deterministic universe you have no actual choice in what you conclude to be empirical, what you consider evidence, or the conclusions you come to.

Except that living creatures demonstrably do make choices…seer chooses what socks to wear and the chimp chooses what banana to eat. These things may be determined in the grand scheme of things, but in the day-to-day word in which we function we act as if we had Free Will, just as we act on the basis that the earth is solid when in reality it’s hurtling through space at c 45,000 MPH. More to the point, your preferred option of Libertarian Free-will cannot logically exist, it’s logically incoherent. And you've not been able to prove otherwise.

seer
01-13-2016, 05:36 AM
More to the point, your preferred option of Libertarian Free-will cannot logically exist, it’s logically incoherent. And you've not been able to prove otherwise.

How do you know what is logically coherent? How do you know that you are determined to even understand what is logical or not?

Tassman
01-13-2016, 08:05 PM
How do you know what is logically coherent?

A logically coherent means that it makes sense on a fundamental level; recognizes all available and known facts; and is internally consistent (I.e. the evidence presented actually supports what's being proposed). It may or may not be correct, but at least it's plausible and worthy of discussion and consideration.

This being the case your preferred option of Libertarian Free-Will is not logically coherent, it’s logical nonsense. And you've not been able to prove otherwise, you have NO logical argument. NONE!


How do you know that you are determined to even understand what is logical or not?

It’s how we've evolved, it’s a survival mechanism. If creatures consistently made illogical decisions the probability is that they wouldn't survive for long.

seer
01-14-2016, 05:36 AM
It’s how we've evolved, it’s a survival mechanism. If creatures consistently made illogical decisions the probability is that they wouldn't survive for long.

Really? We never have false beliefs? So how do you know that you weren't determined to have a false belief concerning this subject?

Tassman
01-14-2016, 07:19 PM
Really? We never have false beliefs? So how do you know that you weren't determined to have a false belief concerning this subject?

We may well have “false beliefs” but given that our survival depends upon true beliefs about how the world functions, too many false beliefs will likely result in death or extinction.

You have yet to address the fact that your preferred option of Libertarian Free-Will is not logically coherent…bearing in mind that a logically coherent argument means that it makes sense on a fundamental level; recognizes all available and known facts; and is internally consistent. Waiting!

seer
01-15-2016, 04:42 AM
We may well have “false beliefs” but given that our survival depends upon true beliefs about how the world functions, too many false beliefs will likely result in death or extinction.

Good so you believe that we are at times determined to have false beliefs, so how do you know your belief on this subject is not false? After all, your survival would not depend on whether you held to determinism or not.


You have yet to address the fact that your preferred option of Libertarian Free-Will is not logically coherent…bearing in mind that a logically coherent argument means that it makes sense on a fundamental level; recognizes all available and known facts; and is internally consistent. Waiting!

Of course it is logically coherent, as Joel has shown in his discussion with Thinker.

Truthseeker
01-15-2016, 01:24 PM
We may well have “false beliefs” but given that our survival depends upon true beliefs about how the world functions, too many false beliefs will likely result in death or extinction.

. . .

a logically coherent argument means that it makes sense on a fundamental level; recognizes all available and known facts; and is internally consistent.Breathes the human who knows all facts and things that are untrue? Phooey!

Tassman
01-15-2016, 08:44 PM
Good so you believe that we are at times determined to have false beliefs, so how do you know your belief on this subject is not false? After all, your survival would not depend on whether you held to determinism or not.

We are not ”determined” to have any beliefs at all on the human scale of things because in a causally determined universe we make decisions based upon the illusion of free will and empirical facts acquired via tested personal experience and that of our predecessors. All the evidence points to this, no evidence points to Libertarian Free Will. To argue the latter you would need to say at what point in the evolutionary tree free will caused or developed…and you’re unable to.


Of course it is logically coherent, as Joel has shown in his discussion with Thinker.

Joel is making a complete hash of it replete with unsupported assumptions re LFW…just like you.


Breathes the human who knows all facts and things that are untrue? Phooey!

Your point??? :huh:

seer
01-16-2016, 04:09 AM
We are not ”determined” to have any beliefs at all on the human scale of things because in a causally determined universe we make decisions based upon the illusion of free will and empirical facts acquired via tested personal experience and that of our predecessors. All the evidence points to this, no evidence points to Libertarian Free Will. To argue the latter you would need to say at what point in the evolutionary tree free will caused or developed…and you’re unable to.

Nonsense Tass, you already agreed that you could be determined to have false beliefs. Of course that only follows since we can have false beliefs and we are determined. So on this subject how do you know that you were not determined to have a false belief.

JimL
01-16-2016, 06:28 AM
Nonsense Tass, you already agreed that you could be determined to have false beliefs.
Most people come to their christian beliefs not by choice, so free will has nothing to do with it.


Of course that only follows since we can have false beliefs and we are determined. So on this subject how do you know that you were not determined to have a false belief.
You know when the evidence you are privy to is enough evidence to overthrow the false belief.

Tassman
01-16-2016, 09:10 PM
Nonsense Tass, you already agreed that you could be determined to have false beliefs.

Living creatures make choices based upon the evolved instinct of survival. These instincts are what are determined and "choices" are made within this framework...if they're wrong choices then the creatures won’t survive. E.g. If you hold to the delusional belief that an attacking lion is a God to be worshipped rather than a predator to be avoided, then you’ll likely not survive.


Of course that only follows since we can have false beliefs and we are determined.

There’s no alternative. Libertarian Free Will is logical nonsense. So we either have Causal Determinism or we Logical Incoherence. Please explain how this could be otherwise.


So on this subject how do you know that you were not determined to have a false belief.

How do you know that your delusional religious beliefs are not false? Unlike my empirically supported beliefs yours are not supported by a shred of substantive evidence…they’re merely wish–fulfilling fantasies. Prove me wrong.

seer
01-17-2016, 12:44 PM
Living creatures make choices based upon the evolved instinct of survival. These instincts are what are determined and "choices" are made within this framework...if they're wrong choices then the creatures won’t survive. E.g. If you hold to the delusional belief that an attacking lion is a God to be worshipped rather than a predator to be avoided, then you’ll likely not survive.

Nonsense Tass, once again are you saying that YOU are never determined to have false beliefs? You never have false beliefs? BTW - false beliefs can have survival value. You could avoid the lion, not because it will eat you, but because you believe it is demon. Besides, you believe that religion if false but obviously that has survival value.

Tassman
01-17-2016, 05:20 PM
Nonsense Tass, once again are you saying that YOU are never determined to have false beliefs? You never have false beliefs? BTW - false beliefs can have survival value. You could avoid the lion, not because it will eat you, but because you believe it is demon. Besides, you believe that religion if false but obviously that has survival value.

Define "false beliefs".

Now answer the question: "How do you know that your delusional religious beliefs are not false? Unlike my empirically supported beliefs yours are not supported by a shred of substantive evidence…they’re merely wish–fulfilling fantasies. Prove me wrong."

And again:

"There’s no alternative. Libertarian Free Will is logical nonsense. So we either have Causal Determinism or we Logical Incoherence. Please explain how this could be otherwise."

seer
01-18-2016, 04:54 AM
Define "false beliefs".

Now answer the question: "How do you know that your delusional religious beliefs are not false? Unlike my empirically supported beliefs yours are not supported by a shred of substantive evidence…they’re merely wish–fulfilling fantasies. Prove me wrong."

Are you missing the whole point of this discussion? Yes or no, are we ever determined to believe false things? I mean if your atheistic determinism is correct then the majority of mankind for the majority of history have been deceived into believing in some form of a deity. So obviously the evolutionary process does cause us to believe false things. So perhaps it cause you to believe false things, on any number of the topics under discussion.

Tassman
01-18-2016, 07:16 PM
Are you missing the whole point of this discussion? Yes or no, are we ever determined to believe false things? I mean if your atheistic determinism is correct then the majority of mankind for the majority of history have been deceived into believing in some form of a deity. So obviously the evolutionary process does cause us to believe false things. So perhaps it cause you to believe false things, on any number of the topics under discussion.

We’re determined to believe whatever our senses dictate based upon observation and experiment; it’s a natural survival mechanism common to all creatures within their various limitations. For humans these beliefs once included keeping the all-powerful gods on side. The better educated now know better, thanks to scientific methodology.

Now stop avoiding the question. "How do you know that your delusional religious beliefs are not false? Unlike my empirically supported beliefs yours are not supported by a shred of substantive evidence…they’re merely wish–fulfilling fantasies." Prove me wrong.

seer
01-19-2016, 04:51 AM
We’re determined to believe whatever our senses dictate based upon observation and experiment; it’s a natural survival mechanism common to all creatures within their various limitations. For humans these beliefs once included keeping the all-powerful gods on side. The better educated now know better, thanks to scientific methodology.

Nonsense Tass, then how come the evolutionary process has deluded most of mankind for most of history concerning religion? Whether you think God is on your side or not, it would still be a delusion dictated and determined by the process. Obviously the process can determine us to have false beliefs (if you are correct). So again, on this particular subject how do you know that you are not determined to have a false belief, that you believe is true?

Tassman
01-19-2016, 09:08 PM
Nonsense Tass, then how come the evolutionary process has deluded most of mankind for most of history concerning religion? Whether you think God is on your side or not, it would still be a delusion dictated and determined by the process.

The evolutionary process resulted in living creatures having an innate survival instinct which, in the case of intelligent animals like us includes understanding our environment.

In the pre-scientific era this understanding took the form of religion…from animism initially, to the nature gods of polytheism and on to the worst of them all, the violence-prone Abrahamic monotheistic deities. The role of religion was to explain otherwise inexplicable occurrences like lightning strikes and to appease the angry god(s) that caused them.

Fortunately, science has done away with such primitive explanations…at least among the better educated in the developed world.


Obviously the process can determine us to have false beliefs (if you are correct). So again, on this particular subject how do you know that you are not determined to have a false belief, that you believe is true?

Now, again, stop avoiding the question. "How do you know that your delusional religious beliefs are not false? Unlike my empirically supported beliefs yours are not supported by a shred of substantive evidence…they’re merely wish–fulfilling fantasies." Prove me wrong. Waiting!

seer
01-20-2016, 05:12 AM
The evolutionary process resulted in living creatures having an innate survival instinct which, in the case of intelligent animals like us includes understanding our environment.

In the pre-scientific era this understanding took the form of religion…from animism initially, to the nature gods of polytheism and on to the worst of them all, the violence-prone Abrahamic monotheistic deities. The role of religion was to explain otherwise inexplicable occurrences like lightning strikes and to appease the angry god(s) that caused them.

Fortunately, science has done away with such primitive explanations…at least among the better educated in the developed world.

But it is still the evolutionary process that cause us to be religious, that deceived us. You can't escape that - we are determined to be religious. We have been deceived by the evolutionary process. And don't bet that religion waning in the West since Islam is eating their secular lunch.



Now, again, stop avoiding the question. "How do you know that your delusional religious beliefs are not false? Unlike my empirically supported beliefs yours are not supported by a shred of substantive evidence…they’re merely wish–fulfilling fantasies." Prove me wrong. Waiting!

I have asked you a number of times Tass and you have not answered. How do you know that on this subject your brain has not deceived you, given that the evolutionary process obviously causes us to have false beliefs?

The Thinker
01-20-2016, 09:37 AM
But it is still the evolutionary process that cause us to be religious, that deceived us. You can't escape that - we are determined to be religious. We have been deceived by the evolutionary process. And don't bet that religion waning in the West since Islam is eating their secular lunch.




I have asked you a number of times Tass and you have not answered. How do you know that on this subject your brain has not deceived you, given that the evolutionary process obviously causes us to have false beliefs?

Basically this is how seer operates:

Step 1: ask the atheist a bunch of questions and demand they be fully answered
Step 2. if they are answered pretend they weren't and keep asking them, or change the subject
Step 3. if they weren't answered proclaim that atheism is false
Step 4. when the atheist asks a bunch of questions, either refuse to answer, or eventually retort to "I believe it on faith"
Step 5. repeat

seer
01-20-2016, 09:56 AM
Basically this is how seer operates:

Step 1: ask the atheist a bunch of questions and demand they be fully answered
Step 2. if they are answered pretend they weren't and keep asking them, or change the subject
Step 3. if they weren't answered proclaim that atheism is false
Step 4. when the atheist asks a bunch of questions, either refuse to answer, or eventually retort to "I believe it on faith"
Step 5. repeat

I guess my brain chemicals are being wicked - please forgive them, they know not what they do...

Tassman
01-20-2016, 09:58 PM
But it is still the evolutionary process that cause us to be religious, that deceived us. You can't escape that - we are determined to be religious. We have been deceived by the evolutionary process.

The evolutionary process merely facilitates the survival of the species. The only deception has been the unnecessary propagation of religion by its adherents long after it passed its explanatory power as to how the universe works. Science has taken its place much more effectively.


And don't bet that religion waning in the West since Islam is eating their secular lunch.

Ah yes, the evils of religion...it flourishes among the poor and ignorant.


I have asked you a number of times Tass and you have not answered. How do you know that on this subject your brain has not deceived you, given that the evolutionary process obviously causes us to have false beliefs?

We’re determined to believe whatever our senses dictate based upon observation and experiment; it’s a natural survival mechanism common to all creatures within their various limitations. For humans these beliefs once included keeping the all-powerful gods on side. The better educated now know better, thanks to scientific methodology.

Now again: "How do you know that your delusional religious beliefs are not false? Unlike my empirically supported beliefs yours are not supported by a shred of substantive evidence…they’re merely wish–fulfilling fantasies." Prove me wrong. Waiting!


I guess my brain chemicals are being wicked - please forgive them, they know not what they do...

Can't answer, huh!

seer
01-21-2016, 05:42 AM
The evolutionary process merely facilitates the survival of the species. The only deception has been the unnecessary propagation of religion by its adherents long after it passed its explanatory power as to how the universe works. Science has taken its place much more effectively.



Ah yes, the evils of religion...it flourishes among the poor and ignorant.



We’re determined to believe whatever our senses dictate based upon observation and experiment; it’s a natural survival mechanism common to all creatures within their various limitations. For humans these beliefs once included keeping the all-powerful gods on side. The better educated now know better, thanks to scientific methodology.

Now again: "How do you know that your delusional religious beliefs are not false? Unlike my empirically supported beliefs yours are not supported by a shred of substantive evidence…they’re merely wish–fulfilling fantasies." Prove me wrong. Waiting!



Can't answer, huh!

Again Tass, none of this matters in your world. We are all only doing and acting as we were determined to, whether Communists (secular) or ISIS (religious). We have no control. So if the Jihadists take Europe it is merely the evolutionary process in action. No different that when one group of bacteria takes over and destroys another group of bacteria.

The Thinker
01-21-2016, 09:56 AM
I guess my brain chemicals are being wicked - please forgive them, they know not what they do...

Regardless, it shows that you are not a serious engaged critical thinker. I forgive you. Most Christians aren't.

The Thinker
01-21-2016, 09:59 AM
Again Tass, none of this matters in your world. We are all only doing and acting as we were determined to, whether Communists (secular) or ISIS (religious). We have no control. So if the Jihadists take Europe it is merely the evolutionary process in action. No different that when one group of bacteria takes over and destroys another group of bacteria.

Your response is a perfect example of:

Step 1: ask the atheist a bunch of questions and demand they be fully answered
Step 2. if they are answered pretend they weren't and keep asking them, or change the subject
Step 3. if they weren't answered proclaim that atheism is false
Step 4. when the atheist asks a bunch of questions, either refuse to answer, or eventually retort to "I believe it on faith"
Step 5. repeat

seer
01-21-2016, 11:59 AM
Your response is a perfect example of:

Step 1: ask the atheist a bunch of questions and demand they be fully answered
Step 2. if they are answered pretend they weren't and keep asking them, or change the subject
Step 3. if they weren't answered proclaim that atheism is false
Step 4. when the atheist asks a bunch of questions, either refuse to answer, or eventually retort to "I believe it on faith"
Step 5. repeat

No Thinker I am only stating what actually follows from your worldview, again:


We are all only doing and acting as we were determined to, whether Communists (secular) or ISIS (religious). We have no control. So if the Jihadists take Europe it is merely the evolutionary process in action. No different that when one group of bacteria takes over and destroys another group of bacteria.

Where am I wrong?

The Thinker
01-21-2016, 02:54 PM
No Thinker I am only stating what actually follows from your worldview, again:


Well first he asked you a question, which you totally ignored. That is step 4 above.

"How do you know that your delusional religious beliefs are not false? Unlike my empirically supported beliefs yours are not supported by a shred of substantive evidence…they’re merely wish–fulfilling fantasies."

Why don't you try answering it?


Where am I wrong?


Right here: "No different that when one group of bacteria takes over and destroys another group of bacteria."


There is a huge different difference between bacteria and people. People are sentient beings who have the capacity to suffer, bacteria aren't. Are you so dumbed down by religion that you can't see this obvious difference?

Tassman
01-21-2016, 10:55 PM
Again Tass, none of this matters in your world. We are all only doing and acting as we were determined to, whether Communists (secular) or ISIS (religious). We have no control. So if the Jihadists take Europe it is merely the evolutionary process in action. No different that when one group of bacteria takes over and destroys another group of bacteria.

This is not “my world” seer as you well know; this is a dishonest parody of the argument...is this really what it takes to defend your religious beliefs? Survival “matters” in the world of sentient creatures as determined by the evolutionary process…as I’ve said umpteen times.

Now again: "How do you know that your delusional religious beliefs are not false? Unlike my empirically supported beliefs yours are not supported by a shred of substantive evidence…they’re merely wish–fulfilling fantasies." Prove me wrong. Waiting!

seer
01-22-2016, 04:51 AM
huge [/U]different difference between bacteria and people. People are sentient beings who have the capacity to suffer, bacteria aren't. Are you so dumbed down by religion that you can't see this obvious difference?

So what? Why does suffering matter? Why do we matter? Dust in the wind brother, all we are is dust in the wind...


When the white flame in us is gone
And we that lost the world's delight
Stiffen in darkness.
Left alone
To crumble in our separate light
When your swift hair is quiet in death
And through the lips corruption thrust to still the labor of my breath
When we are dust, when we are dust.

seer
01-22-2016, 05:05 AM
This is not “my world” seer as you well know; this is a dishonest parody of the argument...is this really what it takes to defend your religious beliefs? Survival “matters” in the world of sentient creatures as determined by the evolutionary process…as I’ve said umpteen times.

I will try one more time: The evolutionary process, if you are correct, has cause the majority of mankind for most of history to be deceived concerning religion. What else has it deceived us about, what has it deceived you about Tass?

The Thinker
01-22-2016, 07:19 AM
So what? Why does suffering matter? Why do we matter? Dust in the wind brother, all we are is dust in the wind...


When the white flame in us is gone
And we that lost the world's delight
Stiffen in darkness.
Left alone
To crumble in our separate light
When your swift hair is quiet in death
And through the lips corruption thrust to still the labor of my breath
When we are dust, when we are dust.


So what? Are you kidding me? This is how dumb religion makes people. It makes them so dependent on god to explain/justify everything that they cannot see the real answers behind things.

I can throw this right back at you. Why does god care about us more than, a rat, or bacteria? What reasons could he have? Try explaining this without appealing to answers I can use, like our capacity for self-awareness, ability to understand complex emotions, our capacity for empathy, our sentience—the capacity to suffer, and our rationality—the ability to think, deliberate, weigh evidence and alternatives, and make informed decisions. This characteristics make a huge difference between us and bacteria.

seer
01-22-2016, 07:43 AM
So what? Are you kidding me? This is how dumb religion makes people. It makes them so dependent on god to explain/justify everything that they cannot see the real answers behind things.

Emotional rant, nothing more.


I can throw this right back at you. Why does god care about us more than, a rat, or bacteria? What reasons could he have? Try explaining this without appealing to answers I can use, like our capacity for self-awareness, ability to understand complex emotions, our capacity for empathy, our sentience—the capacity to suffer, and our rationality—the ability to think, deliberate, weigh evidence and alternatives, and make informed decisions. This characteristics make a huge difference between us and bacteria.

Because we are created in His Spiritual Image, spiritual beings in a physical body. And yes all the above would matter in that they would form our spiritual character. But they are as meaningless, as we are by nature, if your worldview is correct. Dust Thinker, all we are is dust....

The Thinker
01-22-2016, 08:29 AM
Emotional rant, nothing more.

What I wrote is true though.


Because we are created in His Spiritual Image, spiritual beings in a physical body.

Why should that matter?


And yes all the above would matter in that they would form our spiritual character. But they are as meaningless, as we are by nature, if your worldview is correct. Dust Thinker, all we are is dust....

Why would they be meaningless on my view? You just assert it. You don't make any kind of logical argument showing it is true. Until you do, this is just your opinion. And a bad one at that.

seer
01-22-2016, 10:10 AM
What I wrote is true though.

But you would say that true or not. You are a slave to what your brain chemicals dictate.



Why should that matter?

It matters to God.



Why would they be meaningless on my view? You just assert it. You don't make any kind of logical argument showing it is true. Until you do, this is just your opinion. And a bad one at that.

But you are only offering an opinion. The inclusion of suffering or sentience as a criterion is simply your opinion, nothing more. Try telling that to a Communist Party member as he is about to put a round in the back of the head of a dissident.

The Thinker
01-22-2016, 10:31 AM
But you would say that true or not. You are a slave to what your brain chemicals dictate.

No I wouldn't. That assumes my brain has no causal or logical connection with the external world.



It matters to God.

So? That's extrinsic value, not intrinsic value. What god cares about is irrelevant to me. You still haven't explained why being created in god's image gives us any value. You just asserted it.


But you are only offering an opinion. The inclusion of suffering or sentience as a criterion is simply your opinion, nothing more.

I'm offering you a logical explanation and makes sense. Take away our traits, like sentience, rationality, experiencing emotions, etc. and only then you could you even begin to have an actual argument that we're the same as bacteria. You're basically just one bad Christian talking point after another.


Try telling that to a Communist Party member as he is about to put a round in the back of the head of a dissent.

That's totally irrelevant to the logical foundation of something. The existence of someone who disagrees says zip. Try telling an ISIS member about to behead you for being an infidel that you were created in god's image. He'll probably laugh.

Tassman
01-23-2016, 02:13 AM
I will try one more time: The evolutionary process, if you are correct, has cause the majority of mankind for most of history to be deceived concerning religion. What else has it deceived us about, what has it deceived you about Tass?

Try to understand. Firstly, the evolutionary process is empirically verified fact and beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly, the evolutionary process has endowed all living creatures with the survival instinct.

Thirdly, a key component of “survival” among humans is understanding how the world functions, e.g. what foods are beneficial, what dangers to avoid and how to mitigate disasters etc.

And lastly, before the development of science to answer these vital questions we devised the notion that powerful spiritual entities (or gods) must be responsible for all these things.

Furthermore, these gods had to be kept on side with offerings and sacrifices...otherwise they would get angry and strike us down with dread diseases or well-placed lightening strikes or the odd earthquake. We were wrong, but at the time it seemed to be the only way to explain the otherwise inexplicable universe. Now we know better. It was not "the evolutionary process" that "deceived us" but the limited availability of factual knowledge. It was actually the sense of curiosity about how the world worked, arising as a consequence of the evolutionary process, that impelled us to search for answers.

Do you compre?

Now, I’ll try yet again to extract an answer from you: "How do you know that your religious beliefs are not false? Unlike my empirically supported beliefs yours are not supported by a shred of substantive evidence…they’re merely wish–fulfilling fantasies." Prove me wrong. Waiting!

seer
01-24-2016, 05:07 AM
No I wouldn't. That assumes my brain has no causal or logical connection with the external world.

Now you are joking right? You have no control over how your brain chemicals process external stimuli. So yes, you are a slave to these non-rational processes. And you will spit out what they dictate that you spit out - true or not.




So? That's extrinsic value, not intrinsic value. What god cares about is irrelevant to me. You still haven't explained why being created in god's image gives us any value. You just asserted it.

No, Thinker like we discussed it is both intrinsic and extrinsic. Even if it was merely extrinsic, and we matter because we matter to God that is still light years away from being ultimately purposeless creatures in a meaningless universe.



I'm offering you a logical explanation and makes sense. Take away our traits, like sentience, rationality, experiencing emotions, etc. and only then you could you even begin to have an actual argument that we're the same as bacteria. You're basically just one bad Christian talking point after another.

Bull Thinker, there is nothing logical about it. You are including arbitrary characteristics as a criterion. Why not include things like survivability or reproduction as criterion that favor bacteria? Pure opinion Thinker, nothing more.


That's totally irrelevant to the logical foundation of something. The existence of someone who disagrees says zip. Try telling an ISIS member about to behead you for being an infidel that you were created in god's image. He'll probably laugh.

But you have no logical foundation Thinker. Make an objective argument that it is a moral good for us as a species to survive.

The Thinker
01-24-2016, 07:19 AM
Now you are joking right? You have no control over how your brain chemicals process external stimuli. So yes, you are a slave to these non-rational processes. And you will spit out what they dictate that you spit out - true or not.

But this implies that my brain processes are just totally random and have no logical connection to external stimuli, and that I cannot form a rational thought whatsoever. That is completely not true. My brain is working properly and it is capable of rationally analyzing stimuli. I mean, I've already refuted your view that objective morality depends on god. Remember that? I've refuted your silly misunderstanding of the B-theory of time. I've refuted your idea that only with god we have intrinsic value. Totally nonsense. This proves I am rational. And it shows that you have some severe trouble being rational.



No, Thinker like we discussed it is both intrinsic and extrinsic. Even if it was merely extrinsic, and we matter because we matter to God that is still light years away from being ultimately purposeless creatures in a meaningless universe.

No, as we discussed, or better yet, as I showed you, all you have is examples of extrinsic value. Nothing on your model is intrinsic. That's just a fact. It is "merely extrinsic." You don't even know the difference between them because you're uneducated. No one needs ultimate purpose to have value. That's like saying a movie is pointless because it doesn't last forever. It's a stupid religious way of thinking.


Bull Thinker, there is nothing logical about it. You are including arbitrary characteristics as a criterion. Why not include things like survivability or reproduction as criterion that favor bacteria? Pure opinion Thinker, nothing more.

No it isn't arbitrary. You even admitted that these are reasons why your god values us. If god doesn't do anything arbitrary, he does everything for good reasons, and his reasons are the same as mine. So there is nothing arbitrary about my reasons. You just take them and assign them to god as a slight of hand that tries to make them look "objective." There is absolutely something logical about having sentience, rationality, emotions, and things like it to separate us from bacteria. Without these things then we are similar to bacteria. But we're not, and so your view is just another stupid religious view based on nonsense.


But you have no logical foundation Thinker. Make an objective argument that it is a moral good for us as a species to survive.

Oh no, I'm sorry, but it was you who said "But [sentience, rationality, emotions, and things like it] are as meaningless, as we are by nature, if your worldview is correct." And I challenged you to make an argument showing that. You didn't. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this.

seer
01-25-2016, 06:08 AM
But this implies that my brain processes are just totally random and have no logical connection to external stimuli, and that I cannot form a rational thought whatsoever. That is completely not true. My brain is working properly and it is capable of rationally analyzing stimuli. I mean, I've already refuted your view that objective morality depends on god. Remember that? I've refuted your silly misunderstanding of the B-theory of time. I've refuted your idea that only with god we have intrinsic value. Totally nonsense. This proves I am rational. And it shows that you have some severe trouble being rational.

I did not say your acts or thought were random, only that you have no control over your conclusions. And you are begging the question: make a deductive argument that you are correct about the B-Theory of time. That your brain rightly reported and understood the facts. I will be waiting.





No, as we discussed, or better yet, as I showed you, all you have is examples of extrinsic value. Nothing on your model is intrinsic. That's just a fact. It is "merely extrinsic." You don't even know the difference between them because you're uneducated. No one needs ultimate purpose to have value. That's like saying a movie is pointless because it doesn't last forever. It's a stupid religious way of thinking.

Nonsense, if we are created in the image of God that is an inherent quality. As inherent as our reasoning powers. And it is not merely about living forever, but that there is a teleology for man, that we are created for a purpose. And you are correct, in your world we are free to create our own value, you have yours, Stalin and Mao theirs.




No it isn't arbitrary. You even admitted that these are reasons why your god values us. If god doesn't do anything arbitrary, he does everything for good reasons, and his reasons are the same as mine. So there is nothing arbitrary about my reasons. You just take them and assign them to god as a slight of hand that tries to make them look "objective." There is absolutely something logical about having sentience, rationality, emotions, and things like it to separate us from bacteria. Without these things then we are similar to bacteria. But we're not, and so your view is just another stupid religious view based on nonsense.

More nonsense, you took different attributes and judged them to be more valuable than say the attributes that set the bacteria apart like survivability or reproduction. That is a value judgement and based on your opinion. Our attributes do not make us anymore valuable or meaningful than any other creature.




Oh no, I'm sorry, but it was you who said "But [sentience, rationality, emotions, and things like it] are as meaningless, as we are by nature, if your worldview is correct." And I challenged you to make an argument showing that. You didn't. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this.

So you admit that you can not make an objective argument for why we as a species should survive in the first place - noted.

The Thinker
01-25-2016, 07:21 AM
I did not say your acts or thought were random, only that you have no control over your conclusions. And you are begging the question: make a deductive argument that you are correct about the B-Theory of time. That your brain rightly reported and understood the facts. I will be waiting.

But it is true that we have no control over our thoughts or conclusions regardless of what worldview you hold because it is logically impossible to have control over your thoughts. I already proved that on the thread Is libertarian free will coherent? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?9267-Is-libertarian-free-will-coherent) So I don't have to show a logical argument for anything unless you can prove LFW is even coherent. If you can't do it I want you to admit that you cannot logically show LFW is coherent and that you take it solely on faith.



Nonsense, if we are created in the image of God that is an inherent quality. As inherent as our reasoning powers. And it is not merely about living forever, but that there is a teleology for man, that we are created for a purpose. And you are correct, in your world we are free to create our own value, you have yours, Stalin and Mao theirs.

Being created in the image of god is an extrinsic quality, because the value would depend on god. The fact that you claim there is no value without god actually proves my point - that on your view all value is extrinsic - but you're just too uneducated to see this.

And if it's as inherent as reasoning powers - which is something we naturally have - then our value is intrinsic and the atheist's worldview can accommodate that easily. So you're screwed both ways. Either you admit that on your view all value is extrinsic, or you admit that there is intrinsic value because of our properties and thereby allow the atheist to have that same value.

And I want to hear a logical positive argument why being created in the image of god has any value. Since we're evolved primates, does that mean that god is an evolved primate?


More nonsense, you took different attributes and judged them to be more valuable than say the attributes that set the bacteria apart like survivability or reproduction. That is a value judgement and based on your opinion. Our attributes do not make us anymore valuable or meaningful than any other creature.

Our attributes make us distinct from bacteria, and you so were just flat out wrong to say that humans are the same exact thing as bacteria. To justify this you'd need to make a logical argument showing how your worldview allows this distinction without appeal to natural traits like sentience, rationality, empathy, etc. Go head. The burden of proof is on you.



So you admit that you can not make an objective argument for why we as a species should survive in the first place - noted.

No. I noted that the burden of proof is on you to make a logical argument showing that "[sentience, rationality, emotions, and things like it] are as meaningless, as we are by nature, if [my] worldview is correct." So far you have not demonstrated that, you just asserted it.

seer
01-26-2016, 05:27 AM
But it is true that we have no control over our thoughts or conclusions regardless of what worldview you hold because it is logically impossible to have control over your thoughts. I already proved that on the thread Is libertarian free will coherent? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?9267-Is-libertarian-free-will-coherent) So I don't have to show a logical argument for anything unless you can prove LFW is even coherent. If you can't do it I want you to admit that you cannot logically show LFW is coherent and that you take it solely on faith.

Then admit that you have no control over what you believe is true or not, what you find logical or not, what you find coherent or not.



And if it's as inherent as reasoning powers - which is something we naturally have - then our value is intrinsic and the atheist's worldview can accommodate that easily. So you're screwed both ways. Either you admit that on your view all value is extrinsic, or you admit that there is intrinsic value because of our properties and thereby allow the atheist to have that same value.

Nonsense, the image of God, not our reasoning powers, is what sets us apart from other animals, though they may go hand and hand. It is an inherent quality, and the single most important quality.



And I want to hear a logical positive argument why being created in the image of god has any value. Since we're evolved primates, does that mean that god is an evolved primate?

You already know the answer, primates do not have a spirit.



Our attributes make us distinct from bacteria, and you so were just flat out wrong to say that humans are the same exact thing as bacteria. To justify this you'd need to make a logical argument showing how your worldview allows this distinction without appeal to natural traits like sentience, rationality, empathy, etc. Go head. The burden of proof is on you.

I did not say that we were not different from bacteria, but that your choice of attributes to give value to is mere opinion. That because men have attribute A,B or C that that makes them somehow valuable. Well why don't the attributes that bacteria have give them just as much value?



No. I noted that the burden of proof is on you to make a logical argument showing that "[sentience, rationality, emotions, and things like it] are as meaningless, as we are by nature, if [my] worldview is correct." So far you have not demonstrated that, you just asserted it.

I have made the case that your choice of attributes to assign value too is no more than opinion. So make your objective argument for why we as a species should survive in the first place.

The Thinker
01-28-2016, 03:35 PM
Then admit that you have no control over what you believe is true or not, what you find logical or not, what you find coherent or not.

You seem to be acting as if the "you" that I am must be distinct from my body. That's assuming dualism. I am my body. They are not distinct. You seem to think that if my brain causes me to think X, that somehow my "brain" and "me" are two different things, as if the "me" is being controlled by some outside thing. That is false.

The difference with me is that I acknowledge that LFW is false and incoherent. You haven't realized that yet. So you can go around and keep claiming you have it, but all you're really doing is claiming you have something incoherent.



Nonsense, the image of God, not our reasoning powers, is what sets us apart from other animals, though they may go hand and hand. It is an inherent quality, and the single most important quality.

1. Wait, so "God" is an evolved primate? You didn't answer this.

2. When in our evolutionary history did we get the "image of God"? Were neanderthals also in the "image of God"?

3. You have not shown that being in the "image of God" has any value at all. You just claimed it. Logically demonstrate that being in the "image of God" has any value at all, and make sure you don't make the mistake again with confusing intrinsic value with extrinsic value.


You already know the answer, primates do not have a spirit.

We are primates. So you just said that we have no spirit. And logically demonstrate why having a spirit gives something any value. It's not a given.



I did not say that we were not different from bacteria, but that your choice of attributes to give value to is mere opinion. That because men have attribute A,B or C that that makes them somehow valuable. Well why don't the attributes that bacteria have give them just as much value?

Oh I see, mere "opinion". You mean like when you claim being in the "image of God" has any value at all? You just asserted that. I need to hear an argument showing this. What if a species of primate evolved completely naturally into the exact same form as someone that's in the "image of God" by coincidence. What would be of any less value about it?

Once you take away our attributes as reasons that we're different from bacteria you cease to be able to make a coherent argument. What does image of god have? I see no value in this. Would we have value if we were in the image of god but didn't have traits like sentience, rationality, empathy, etc?



I have made the case that your choice of attributes to assign value too is no more than opinion. So make your objective argument for why we as a species should survive in the first place.

There is no objective argument why we should survive. Even theism can't provide this. If god wanted us to live, that would be subjective. He could easily change his mind. Even if he doesn't it's still as subjective as the opinion of an alien race.

I'm arguing that the only way you can rationally ground human value is in our inherent traits like sentience, rationality, empathy, etc. Take them away and make an argument for intrinsic (not extrinsic) human value.

seer
01-30-2016, 07:05 AM
You seem to be acting as if the "you" that I am must be distinct from my body. That's assuming dualism. I am my body. They are not distinct. You seem to think that if my brain causes me to think X, that somehow my "brain" and "me" are two different things, as if the "me" is being controlled by some outside thing. That is false.

Thinker, do you have control over what you think, do or say? Yes or no, and if yes, in what sense do you have control?

JimL
01-30-2016, 02:13 PM
Thinker, do you have control over what you think, do or say? Yes or no, and if yes, in what sense do you have control?

The truth seer, is that the answer isn't known with certainty. If, with respect to the universe eternalism is true, i.e. if the B-theory of time is true, or if the observed physics of the universe is the complete description of reality, then the universe is either a-temporal, or physically determined, and so we would have no control over either what we think or what we do. That is the view of science, it was the view of Einstein, and that is the argument that you are trying to refute, but you are trying to refute it without regard to the science. You don't have to believe the science, I'm not convinced myself, if the science is correct, then there is no point in worrying about our futures or the future of the enviroment, i.e. the effects of climate change, or of anything else, since it is either already a fact, or it is determined to be so. To be perfectly honest, I think we are missing something.

Tassman
01-30-2016, 08:09 PM
Thinker, do you have control over what you think, do or say? Yes or no, and if yes, in what sense do you have control?

...and around we go again. :sigh:

"YOU" are not separate from your brain, you ARE your brain. The very phrasing of your question implies 'dualism', for which there's no evidence whatsoever. It is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions. There's not a shred of credible evidence supporting your assertion that one can exercise agency outside of those laws.


The truth seer, is that the answer isn't known with certainty. If, with respect to the universe eternalism is true, i.e. if the B-theory of time is true, or if the observed physics of the universe is the complete description of reality, then the universe is either a-temporal, or physically determined, and so we would have no control over either what we think or what we do. That is the view of science, it was the view of Einstein, and that is the argument that you are trying to refute, but you are trying to refute it without regard to the science. You don't have to believe the science, I'm not convinced myself, if the science is correct, then there is no point in worrying about our futures or the future of the enviroment, i.e. the effects of climate change, or of anything else, since it is either already a fact, or it is determined to be so. To be perfectly honest, I think we are missing something.

Yes there is. Our decisions are in and of themselves a part of the causal chain. You’re making the same mistake as seer in confusing ‘fatalism’ with ‘determinism’…see the last box [Determinism] in Thinker’s link:

http://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/determinism-vs-fatalism-infographic/

seer
01-31-2016, 02:51 AM
...and around we go again. :sigh:

"YOU" are not separate from your brain, you ARE your brain. The very phrasing of your question implies 'dualism', for which there's no evidence whatsoever. It is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions. There's not a shred of credible evidence supporting your assertion that one can exercise agency outside of those laws.


Nonsense Tass, if this is the case then you have no control over anything you think, do or say. It is all determined.

JimL
01-31-2016, 06:42 AM
...and around we go again. :sigh:

"YOU" are not separate from your brain, you ARE your brain. The very phrasing of your question implies 'dualism', for which there's no evidence whatsoever. It is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions. There's not a shred of credible evidence supporting your assertion that one can exercise agency outside of those laws.



Yes there is. Our decisions are in and of themselves a part of the causal chain. You’re making the same mistake as seer in confusing ‘fatalism’ with ‘determinism’…see the last box [Determinism] in Thinker’s link:

http://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/determinism-vs-fatalism-infographic/

You may be right Tass, but I don't think it a very convincing argument. Unless the will itself is somehow freed from the causal stream then I don't see how determinism is any different than fatalism. If we are going to stick with the science in so far as we understand it, then either our choices and actions are predetermined by physics, or time and change are themselves illusions and our choices and actions already exist in the now. We can't argue that free will is an illusion and then argue that we are somehow responsible for the choices we make. Its a contradiction. Einstein himself argued against the idea of free will based on the science calling it a "persistent illusion." To paraphrase a qoute of his regarding this he said: "I know that it isn't the ax murderers fault that he is an ax murderer, but I wouldn't want to sit at tea with him." By not being his fault Einstein meant that he had no choice in the matter, no freedom to do otherwise. Personally, I am just not convinced, I think we are probably overlooking something in the science itself, but don't ask me what it is.

Tassman
01-31-2016, 09:50 PM
Nonsense Tass, if this is the case then you have no control over anything you think, do or say. It is all determined.

It’s just as determined as for any other sentient creature, e.g. is a chimp exercising control over anything it thinks or does? It obviously thinks it does, just as you and I think we make free-will decisions. In fact our choices can only be made under the illusion of free- will, but they nevertheless have a real effect within the causal chain.

You have not provided an argument against this logic. You've not provided a shred of credible evidence supporting your assertion that one can exercise agency outside of the natural laws. If you think one can then present your argument. To date, you've been totally unable to support your bald assertion of LFW.

Tassman
01-31-2016, 10:01 PM
You may be right Tass, but I don't think it a very convincing argument. Unless the will itself is somehow freed from the causal stream then I don't see how determinism is any different than fatalism.

How can “the will” override the laws and constants of nature when it is itself subject to the very same laws and constants of nature.


If we are going to stick with the science in so far as we understand it, then either our choices and actions are predetermined by physics, or time and change are themselves illusions and our choices and actions already exist in the now. We can't argue that free will is an illusion and then argue that we are somehow responsible for the choices we make. Its a contradiction. Einstein himself argued against the idea of free will based on the science calling it a "persistent illusion." To paraphrase a qoute of his regarding this he said: "I know that it isn't the ax murderers fault that he is an ax murderer, but I wouldn't want to sit at tea with him." By not being his fault Einstein meant that he had no choice in the matter, no freedom to do otherwise. Personally, I am just not convinced, I think we are probably overlooking something in the science itself, but don't ask me what it is.

Our behaviour is determined in every respect by physical law. If you disagree, then at what point does the brain cease being governed by it, thereby enabling the exercise of LFW? It makes no sense to argue that we rise above the laws of nature given that we're a part of nature in every respect.

The only alternative is to posit that a part of us is super-natural (e.g. our ‘soul’) but there’s no credible evidence to support this notion. Plus the question is raised as to how the immaterial soul can interact with the material body

seer
02-01-2016, 04:57 AM
It’s just as determined as for any other sentient creature, e.g. is a chimp exercising control over anything it thinks or does? It obviously thinks it does, just as you and I think we make free-will decisions. In fact our choices can only be made under the illusion of free- will, but they nevertheless have a real effect within the causal chain.

Sure and a rock rolling down a hill and killing a bunny rabbit has a real effect on the causal chain. But so what? But I'm glad you admit you have no control over what you think do or say. Including the fact that you have no control over believing what you wrote above - true or not, right or wrong.

The Thinker
02-01-2016, 07:35 AM
Thinker, do you have control over what you think, do or say? Yes or no, and if yes, in what sense do you have control?

Define "you".

seer
02-01-2016, 09:33 AM
Define "you".

Word games. You already agreed Thinker that you have no control over what you believe, think or do. You are determined - totally and completely. A biological automaton.

The Thinker
02-01-2016, 09:44 AM
Word games. You already agreed Thinker that you have no control over what you believe, think or do. You are determined - totally and completely. A biological automaton.

And your way out of this is logically incoherent.

seer
02-01-2016, 09:57 AM
And your way out of this is logically incoherent.

OK, so I'm logically incoherent, and you can not logically know if your what you consider incoherent or not is actually correct.

The Thinker
02-01-2016, 10:04 AM
OK, so I'm logically incoherent, and you can not logically know if your what you consider incoherent or not is actually correct.

Of course I can know, because I have a functioning brain that can properly process information.

seer
02-01-2016, 10:16 AM
Of course I can know, because I have a functioning brain that can properly process information.

And your brain never gives you false information that you believe to be true?

The Thinker
02-01-2016, 10:50 AM
And your brain never gives you false information that you believe to be true?

Of course it does. I said my brain can properly process information, I did not say it always will.

JimL
02-01-2016, 11:51 AM
How can “the will” override the laws and constants of nature when it is itself subject to the very same laws and constants of nature.
I'm in agreement with you about that, but to argue that "the will," whatever is meant by that, can't overide the laws and constants of nature, is to argue that there is no such thing as "the will," or at least "a free will," and if there is no such thing as "free will" through the which one is free to choose between either A or B, then it seems a contradiction to argue that ones future isn't fatalistic. I'm just not seeing the logical way around that.



Our behaviour is determined in every respect by physical law. If you disagree, then at what point does the brain cease being governed by it, thereby enabling the exercise of LFW? It makes no sense to argue that we rise above the laws of nature given that we're a part of nature in every respect.
But that's the point, I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that our behavior is determined with respect to physical law, what I am having a problem with is the idea that if our behavior is determined then how can it also be argued that it is not fatalistic?

The only alternative is to posit that a part of us is super-natural (e.g. our ‘soul’) but there’s no credible evidence to support this notion. Plus the question is raised as to how the immaterial soul can interact with the material body
That I am not so sure about, it is possible that there is another natural alternative, or solution to the problem, that we just haven't figured out yet.

seer
02-01-2016, 01:00 PM
Of course it does. I said my brain can properly process information, I did not say it always will.

Then it is possible that on any specific issue that your brain has deceived you.

JimL
02-01-2016, 02:11 PM
Then it is possible that on any specific issue that your brain has deceived you.
Well, the brain is not independent seer, it is dependent upon the information input which can be conflicting no less so than it would be to your brainless soul. I imagine as well that there is more to the brain than just information, for instance the brain can be biased due to prior inculcation. You keep making a distinction between your "brain" and "you" as if it is a separate you that is being deceived by your brain which is not you. If you get it wrong, it isn't because your brain is decieving you, it is because "you the brain" are deceived. How do you think brainwashing, or indoctrination, works?

Tassman
02-01-2016, 08:47 PM
Sure and a rock rolling down a hill and killing a bunny rabbit has a real effect on the causal chain. But so what? But I'm glad you admit you have no control over what you think do or say. Including the fact that you have no control over believing what you wrote above - true or not, right or wrong.

You’re just recycling your same old old arguments, seer. Have you learnt nothing?

“You” ARE your brain. "YOU" is not separate from your brain. And of course we have an effect. Unlike mindless rocks sentient creatures like us can assess situations, process information and make decisions accordingly.


Then it is possible that on any specific issue that your brain has deceived you.

Given that "you" and "your brain" are one and the same you're saying no more that one can deceive oneself...you know, like those who deceive themselves about a post mortem existence.

Tassman
02-01-2016, 09:10 PM
I'm in agreement with you about that, but to argue that "the will," whatever is meant by that, can't overide the laws and constants of nature, is to argue that there is no such thing as "the will," or at least "a free will," and if there is no such thing as "free will" through the which one is free to choose between either A or B, then it seems a contradiction to argue that ones future isn't fatalistic. I'm just not seeing the logical way around that.

But we have the illusion of free will and we act upon the basis that our choices are freely made… just as we act upon the assumption of terra firma when in fact the planet is hurtling around the sun at c. 30,000 miles per second. Even though we now know this to be the case, it doesn't stop us acting as though the earth is solid and stationary. On the human scale of things it is.


But that's the point, I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that our behavior is determined with respect to physical law, what I am having a problem with is the idea that if our behavior is determined then how can it also be argued that it is not fatalistic?

Because we make decisions on the basis that they matter, even though they’re based upon the illusion of free will…and they do matter. They themselves are an essential component of the causal chain.


That I am not so sure about, it is possible that there is another natural alternative, or solution to the problem, that we just haven't figured out yet.

There can’t be another natural alternative without violating the essential antecedent causal nature of physical law.

seer
02-02-2016, 04:59 AM
Given that "you" and "your brain" are one and the same you're saying no more that one can deceive oneself...you know, like those who deceive themselves about a post mortem existence.

That is completely stupid coming from your worldview Tass. Whatever I believe do or say is determined. I can not do otherwise.

seer
02-02-2016, 05:13 AM
Well, the brain is not independent seer, it is dependent upon the information input which can be conflicting no less so than it would be to your brainless soul. I imagine as well that there is more to the brain than just information, for instance the brain can be biased due to prior inculcation. You keep making a distinction between your "brain" and "you" as if it is a separate you that is being deceived by your brain which is not you. If you get it wrong, it isn't because your brain is decieving you, it is because "you the brain" are deceived. How do you think brainwashing, or indoctrination, works?

Yes, I make a distinction between the brain and the mind. And so does Thinker. The thing that is being argued is, does our conscious awareness, our conscious deliberation play a causal role in the process. I argue yes, Thinker argues no.

The Thinker
02-02-2016, 09:01 AM
Then it is possible that on any specific issue that your brain has deceived you.

Of course, just like it's possible on a specific issue your soul deceived you on your view. There is no difference.

seer
02-02-2016, 10:04 AM
Of course, just like it's possible on a specific issue your soul deceived you on your view. There is no difference.

No Thinker, I believe our conscious rational deliberations play a real role in the process. You do not.

The Thinker
02-02-2016, 10:13 AM
No Thinker, I believe our conscious rational deliberations play a real role in the process. You do not.

So are you saying you can never be deceived by something ever? You know you can. And when you do your soul deceives you. Otherwise what causes your rational deliberation? If it has no cause then it cannot be rational.

seer
02-02-2016, 10:38 AM
So are you saying you can never be deceived by something ever? You know you can. And when you do your soul deceives you. Otherwise what causes your rational deliberation? If it has no cause then it cannot be rational.

I said nothing about the soul and you know it. I'm speaking of conscious rational deliberations playing a causal role - which you deny.

The Thinker
02-02-2016, 10:54 AM
I said nothing about the soul and you know it. I'm speaking of conscious rational deliberations playing a causal role - which you deny.

So what causes your conscious rational deliberations if not your soul? Unless you can show the coherency of LFW, which you know you can't, your claim that conscious rational deliberations play a causal role is pointless.

seer
02-02-2016, 11:24 AM
So what causes your conscious rational deliberations if not your soul? Unless you can show the coherency of LFW, which you know you can't, your claim that conscious rational deliberations play a causal role is pointless.

Nonsense, you can not make a logical case that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality, you trust your intuitive sense that it is so. I trust my intuitive sense, based on experience, that my conscious deliberations play a causal role in my actions - like when I got up to make coffee. Can I prove it -no, but I accept it. How a my spirit plays or doesn't play into the process is beyond me, but I am not wed to materialistic causes when it comes to explanations or possibilities. And to me, your option is not even in the running - making the human person no more that a biological automaton. Slaves to antecedent conditions. Morally and rationally vacant.

The Thinker
02-02-2016, 11:40 AM
Nonsense, you can not make a logical case that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality, you trust your intuitive sense that it is so. I trust my intuitive sense, based on experience, that my conscious deliberations play a causal role in my actions - like when I got up to make coffee. Can I prove it -no, but I accept it. How a my spirit plays or doesn't play into the process is beyond me, but I am not wed to materialistic causes when it comes to explanations or possibilities.

Can you make a logical case that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality - not just that it is possible - but that it is the case? No. So you have nothing on me in this regard.

Trusting your intuitive sense isn't always reliable. Science has proven that time and time again by showing us how our intuitions are wrong. And we have good evidence against this view. So you must deal with it in order to be logical. And materialism is not the issue here. I can grant dualism and you'd still have to provide evidence for it - because anything that has a causal impact on the physical world is scientifically verifiable. I've told you this 5 or more times and you keep reiterating your claim that you don't have to show evidence because you're not a materialist. Sorry buddy, it doesn't work that way.


And to me, your option is not even in the running - making the human person no more that a biological automaton. Slaves to antecedent conditions. Morally and rationally vacant.

All you did is commit the informal fallacy of appealing to consequences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences). So much for your "rational conscious deliberation." And the irony is that you claim LFW to resolve this, when you know it is an incoherent concept. So your view is not even possible.

seer
02-02-2016, 11:47 AM
Can you make a logical case that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality - not just that it is possible - but that it is the case? No. So you have nothing on me in this regard.

Trusting your intuitive sense isn't always reliable. Science has proven that time and time again by showing us how our intuitions are wrong. And we have good evidence against this view. So you must deal with it in order to be logical. And materialism is not the issue here. I can grant dualism and you'd still have to provide evidence for it - because anything that has a causal impact on the physical world is scientifically verifiable. I've told you this 5 or more times and you keep reiterating your claim that you don't have to show evidence because you're not a materialist. Sorry buddy, it doesn't work that way.

All you did is commit the informal fallacy of appealing to consequences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences). So much for your "rational conscious deliberation." And the irony is that you claim LFW to resolve this, when you know it is an incoherent concept. So your view is not even possible.

I will leave you with the last word.

The Thinker
02-02-2016, 03:03 PM
I will leave you with the last word.

Interesting. As soon as you get challenged to logically justify your position, you suddenly want to end the thread. Gee, could it be that you can't do it?

JimL
02-02-2016, 06:05 PM
But we have the illusion of free will and we act upon the basis that our choices are freely made… just as we act upon the assumption of terra firma when in fact the planet is hurtling around the sun at c. 30,000 miles per second. Even though we now know this to be the case, it doesn't stop us acting as though the earth is solid and stationary. On the human scale of things it is.
Yes but the fact that our choices being freely made is an illusion testifies to the fact that those choices are fatalistic. It doesn't matter that they are good or bad choices, if the choices are just the end result of antecedent causes then in what sense are they not fatalistic.



Because we make decisions on the basis that they matter, even though they’re based upon the illusion of free will…and they do matter. They themselves are an essential component of the causal chain.
But whether our choices matter or not is not in question, I think that what is in question is whether or not our choices are destined due to their being an essential component of the causal chain.



There can’t be another natural alternative without violating the essential antecedent causal nature of physical law.
Or perhaps we are just missing something. If we are to accept the science, in so far as we understand it, then we don't really make any choices at all, the past, present and future are all there, they all exist in the now, in their own now. I don't accept that, it could be true, and I don't know what the alternative could be, but I believe in a process in which the future is open. If not then I think seer is right about the fact that we are no more than puppets, though conscious ones.

Tassman
02-02-2016, 09:17 PM
That is completely stupid coming from your worldview Tass. Whatever I believe do or say is determined. I can not do otherwise.

Yet again, you confuse 'fatalism' with 'determinism'. When will you learn? Unless you can demonstrate how LFW can be logically coherent in a universe which is demonstrably determined, you have no argument…merely an unsupported bald assertion based upon your dislike of the consequences of causal determinism. In reality you’re saying: “I don’t like it, therefore it’s not true”.

Tassman
02-02-2016, 09:25 PM
Yes but the fact that our choices being freely made is an illusion testifies to the fact that those choices are fatalistic. It doesn't matter that they are good or bad choices, if the choices are just the end result of antecedent causes then in what sense are they not fatalistic.

Well no, because the choices are being actually made and play a part in the totality of things, unlike with fatalism wherein one merely sits back and waits for fate to overtake us.


But whether our choices matter or not is not in question, I think that what is in question is whether or not our choices are destined due to their being an essential component of the causal chain.

All sentient creatures make choices and decisions...unlike non-sentient objects like rocks...and therefore must play a part within the causal chain (both contributing to and reacting from) even if in ultimate terms those decisions are all determined. But, regardless, we will continue to make decisions under the illusion of making free-will choices because this is the way living creatures have evolved.


Or perhaps we are just missing something. If we are to accept the science, in so far as we understand it, then we don't really make any choices at all, the past, present and future are all there, they all exist in the now, in their own now. I don't accept that, it could be true, and I don't know what the alternative could be, but I believe in a process in which the future is open. If not then I think seer is right about the fact that we are no more than puppets, though conscious ones.

What could we possibly be missing? How can 'the will', or 'soul' or whatever you want to call it, override natural laws when it is itself subject to the very same physical laws? And are other creatures like chimps exempt from physical law too?

seer
02-03-2016, 04:51 AM
Yet again, you confuse 'fatalism' with 'determinism'. When will you learn?

No Tass, I'm not confusing anything - I'm using an accepted definition of fatalism:


Fatalism

Fa"tal*ism (?), n. [Cf. F. fatalisme.] The doctrine that all things are subject to fate, or that they take place by inevitable necessity.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resourc...ism&use1913=on

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/fatalism

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fatalism?rdfrom=Fatalism

You just don't like it...

JimL
02-03-2016, 11:20 AM
Well no, because the choices are being actually made and play a part in the totality of things, unlike with fatalism wherein one merely sits back and waits for fate to overtake us.
But what is it that you mean when you say that "choices are actually being made"? Does the brain have the ability to choose a different option than the one it actually chooses, or is the option it chooses, whether good or bad, the fatal result of the causal chain.



All sentient creatures make choices and decisions...unlike non-sentient objects like rocks...and therefore must play a part within the causal chain (both contributing to and reacting from) even if in ultimate terms those decisions are all determined. But, regardless, we will continue to make decisions under the illusion of making free-will choices because this is the way living creatures have evolved.
Yes, but I am still not seeing how, being that they are determined choices, how they can also be said to not be fatalistic. In physics, determined means that if one knows the present state of a system that he can from that knowledge deduce the future state of the system. Because we don't know the present state of the system there are many possible options, but in truth, with respect to determinism, there would be only one real option option. Free will in this sense is an illusion, but it would also be fatalistic in that the choices one makes are the only choices they can make.



What could we possibly be missing? How can 'the will', or 'soul' or whatever you want to call it, override natural laws when it is itself subject to the very same physical laws? And are other creatures like chimps exempt from physical law too?
I'm not suggesting the existence of a soul, that doesn't make any sense either, I'm just suggesting that perhaps there is something about natural law that we are missing. I don't know, perhaps it has something to do with the evolution, structure and functioning of the brain itself. After all, it seems that the more evolved the brain is the freer our choices seem to be to us.

Tassman
02-03-2016, 11:05 PM
No Tass, I'm not confusing anything - I'm using an accepted definition of fatalism:



You just don't like it...

The common definition of fatalism is that it's differentiated from determinism, as has been pointed out many times. And, unless you can demonstrate how LFW can be logically coherent in a universe which is demonstrably determined, you have no argument…merely an unsupported bald assertion based upon your dislike of the consequences of causal determinism. In reality you’re saying: “I don’t like it, therefore it’s not true”. Still waiting for your logically coherent argument for LFW!

Tassman
02-04-2016, 01:17 AM
But what is it that you mean when you say that "choices are actually being made"? Does the brain have the ability to choose a different option than the one it actually chooses, or is the option it chooses, whether good or bad, the fatal result of the causal chain.

It means that under the illusion of free-will we make choices in good faith that have real effect.


Yes, but I am still not seeing how, being that they are determined choices, how they can also be said to not be fatalistic. In physics, determined means that if one knows the present state of a system that he can from that knowledge deduce the future state of the system. Because we don't know the present state of the system there are many possible options, but in truth, with respect to determinism, there would be only one real option option. Free will in this sense is an illusion, but it would also be fatalistic in that the choices one makes are the only choices they can make.

We can never know the present “state of the system” because that would mean we're aware of every single one of the myriad antecedent causal variables from the beginning of the time/space continuum that comprises the universe up to and including you and me. And this is utterly impossible.


I'm not suggesting the existence of a soul, that doesn't make any sense either, I'm just suggesting that perhaps there is something about natural law that we are missing. I don't know, perhaps it has something to do with the evolution, structure and functioning of the brain itself. After all, it seems that the more evolved the brain is the freer our choices seem to be to us.

The evolution, structure and functioning of the brain are subject to the physical laws which govern the universe. The say otherwise is to violate the laws of the natural universe and there’s no coherent way that this is logically possible.

seer
02-04-2016, 04:49 AM
The common definition of fatalism is that it's differentiated from determinism, as has been pointed out many times.

That is false Tass, both Joel and I linked accepted definition of fatalism that state if all events take place by inevitable necessity then that is fatalistic. And you believe that all events are inevitable.


And, unless you can demonstrate how LFW can be logically coherent in a universe which is demonstrably determined, you have no argument…merely an unsupported bald assertion based upon your dislike of the consequences of causal determinism.

Really? Prove that ALL events in the universe are determined. Besides Joel is doing an excellent job showing that the concept of free will is not logically incoherent.

JimL
02-04-2016, 05:23 PM
It means that under the illusion of free-will we make choices in good faith that have real effect.
I agree with that, but it doesn't seem to me that the fact that we make choices which have real effect negates the fact that those choices are fatalistic. I'm just not seeing the difference between determinism and fatalism in that argument.



We can never know the present “state of the system” because that would mean we're aware of every single one of the myriad antecedent causal variables from the beginning of the time/space continuum that comprises the universe up to and including you and me. And this is utterly impossible.
Well actually it would mean that we would know every single micro state comprising the present macrostate of the system, which of course is impossible. Laplaces Demon. But not knowing the present state and therefore not being able to predict the future state, afaics, doesn't make the future state in such a determined system any less fatalistic. The only way that I can see to get around the problem of fatalism is if our futures are not determined by antecedent causes, or in other words if we are able to freely choose any of the possible future options available to us. In a physically deterministic universe where free will is an illusion everything is determined from the get go, and from my perspective that can't be defined as anything else but fatalistic.



The evolution, structure and functioning of the brain are subject to the physical laws which govern the universe. The say otherwise is to violate the laws of the natural universe and there’s no coherent way that this is logically possible.
I agree, in so far as we understand physical law free will is impossible, which leaves us with fatalism. But, as has been pointed out to me many times, science isn't proof of anything, so perhaps we are just overlooking something.

Tassman
02-04-2016, 09:58 PM
That is false Tass, both Joel and I linked accepted definition of fatalism that state if all events take place by inevitable necessity then that is fatalistic. And you believe that all events are inevitable.

Your link was but one of many definitions and by no means the most common one. But in either scenario, LFW remains logically impossible…and this is your problem.


Really? Prove that ALL events in the universe are determined. Besides Joel is doing an excellent job showing that the concept of free will is not logically incoherent.

The onus is on you to show how events can occur without antecedent causes.

Tassman
02-04-2016, 11:41 PM
I agree with that, but it doesn't seem to me that the fact that we make choices which have real effect negates the fact that those choices are fatalistic. I'm just not seeing the difference between determinism and fatalism in that argument.

The difference is that by actively participating in the decision-making process we actually experience things and this provides purpose and meaning in our lives. It’s how we've evolved to be.


Well actually it would mean that we would know every single micro state comprising the present macrostate of the system, which of course is impossible. Laplaces Demon. But not knowing the present state and therefore not being able to predict the future state, afaics, doesn't make the future state in such a determined system any less fatalistic.

It renders the determined universe more satisfactory for us in that we’re actively participating in it rather than passively accepting it as per fatalism.


The only way that I can see to get around the problem of fatalism is if our futures are not determined by antecedent causes, or in other words if we are able to freely choose any of the possible future options available to us. In a physically deterministic universe where free will is an illusion everything is determined from the get go, and from my perspective that can't be defined as anything else but fatalistic.

The most fundamental aspect of science is that the universe is governed by the laws and constants of nature. So, for you to posit “freely chosen options” is to suggest that the universe is capricious, rather governed by the consistent physical laws. And there’s no indication this is the case.


I agree, in so far as we understand physical law free will is impossible, which leaves us with fatalism. But, as has been pointed out to me many times, science isn't proof of anything, so perhaps we are just overlooking something.

In a non-capricious universe governed by physical laws LFW cannot, under any circumstances, logically function in that the agent himself is subject to the determined, antecedent causality of physical law?

seer
02-05-2016, 05:10 AM
Your link was but one of many definitions and by no means the most common one. But in either scenario, LFW remains logically impossible…and this is your problem.

But my definitions are legitimate, and accepted. Whether you like it or not.


The onus is on you to show how events can occur without antecedent causes.

Joel is doing yeoman's work on the subject. Better than I can do. Never mind the fact that you fall into an infinite regression of antecedent causes.

Tassman
02-05-2016, 09:11 PM
But my definitions are legitimate, and accepted. Whether you like it or not.

Your definitions omit the main difference between fatalism and determinism, namely the fact of causation.


Joel is doing yeoman's work on the subject.

I disagree.


Never mind the fact that you fall into an infinite regression of antecedent causes.

As opposed to your regression of antecedent causes ending with a 'first cause', namely God you mean? What caused God?

JimL
02-06-2016, 05:41 AM
The difference is that by actively participating in the decision-making process we actually experience things and this provides purpose and meaning in our lives. It’s how we've evolved to be.
I think that I agree with this, but I'm not sure that the purpose and meaning we experience in our lives can not still be defined as fatalism. If it can not be any other way, if what we experience, whether for better or worse, is inevitable, then it is fatalistic. No?



It renders the determined universe more satisfactory for us in that we’re actively participating in it rather than passively accepting it as per fatalism.
Satisfaction if our lives are determined for the better, not so much if they are determined for the worse. Fatalistic in either case, I think.



The most fundamental aspect of science is that the universe is governed by the laws and constants of nature. So, for you to posit “freely chosen options” is to suggest that the universe is capricious, rather governed by the consistent physical laws. And there’s no indication this is the case.
Exactly. From the deterministic perspective, there are no real options, the future, whether it exists in its own "now" as in B-Theory, or is fated to be in that same state, as in A-Theory, it is closed. If it is fated to be, then it is fatalistic. No?



In a non-capricious universe governed by physical laws LFW cannot, under any circumstances, logically function in that the agent himself is subject to the determined, antecedent causality of physical law?
Agreed. But, in so far as I can see, that is a fatalistic definition of existence whether our experience is one of meaning and purpose or not.

Tassman
02-06-2016, 09:58 PM
I think that I agree with this, but I'm not sure that the purpose and meaning we experience in our lives can not still be defined as fatalism. If it can not be any other way, if what we experience, whether for better or worse, is inevitable, then it is fatalistic. No?

The main difference between ‘fatalism’ and ‘determinism’ is the fact of causation and we are participants in the latter…we can’t help ourselves, it’s instinctive. E.g. if you’re attacked by a lion do you take evasive action or do nothing whilst humming "Que Sera, Sera"? I suggest the former will be the case.


Satisfaction if our lives are determined for the better, not so much if they are determined for the worse. Fatalistic in either case, I think.

The satisfaction derives from our active participation, it’s how we've evolved to be.


Exactly. From the deterministic perspective, there are no real options, the future, whether it exists in its own "now" as in B-Theory, or is fated to be in that same state, as in A-Theory, it is closed. If it is fated to be, then it is fatalistic. No?

We are causal participants in the determined process hence the outcome may be different than if we did nothing and merely waited for destiny to overtake us. It may not be but we have no way of knowing…so we act.


Agreed. But, in so far as I can see, that is a fatalistic definition of existence whether our experience is one of meaning and purpose or not.

Well no, for the above reasons. We may just be passive pawns in the system but we don’t feel that we are and so we act as though we're capable of making free-will choices. As a consequence our choices play a part in the causal stream that is ‘determinism’.

JimL
02-07-2016, 04:57 AM
The main difference between ‘fatalism’ and ‘determinism’ is the fact of causation and we are participants in the latter…we can’t help ourselves, it’s instinctive. E.g. if you’re attacked by a lion do you take evasive action or do nothing whilst humming "Que Sera, Sera"? I suggest the former will be the case.



The satisfaction derives from our active participation, it’s how we've evolved to be.



We are causal participants in the determined process hence the outcome may be different than if we did nothing and merely waited for destiny to overtake us. It may not be but we have no way of knowing…so we act.



Well no, for the above reasons. We may just be passive pawns in the system but we don’t feel that we are and so we act as though we're capable of making free-will choices. As a consequence our choices play a part in the causal stream that is ‘determinism’.
We "may be" passive pawns, or "we are" passive pawns? If "we are" passive pawns, then the fact that we feel as though our actions are freely chosen along with the fact that those choices play a part in the causal stream, doesn't change the fact that they are not freely chosen. If as the physics suggest, that the past and the future are just as real as the present, i.e. B-Theory, then even the idea that there are such things as choices being made is an illusion. Under that system I don't see how it could be defined as anything other than fatalistic. But even under A-Theory the future, though it doesn't exist in its own now, would end up in the same configuration as if it did, due to the causal stream. I don't think that feelings, or the fact that we play a passively active part in the causal stream, alters the fact that deteminism is fatalistic.

Tassman
02-07-2016, 09:56 PM
We "may be" passive pawns, or "we are" passive pawns? If "we are" passive pawns, then the fact that we feel as though our actions are freely chosen along with the fact that those choices play a part in the causal stream, doesn't change the fact that they are not freely chosen. If as the physics suggest, that the past and the future are just as real as the present, i.e. B-Theory, then even the idea that there are such things as choices being made is an illusion. Under that system I don't see how it could be defined as anything other than fatalistic. But even under A-Theory the future, though it doesn't exist in its own now, would end up in the same configuration as if it did, due to the causal stream. I don't think that feelings, or the fact that we play a passively active part in the causal stream, alters the fact that deteminism is fatalistic.

The fact that our ‘free-will’ is illusory is really beside the point. The fact is we make these decisions and as a consequence our choices play a part in the causal stream that is ‘determinism’. The alternative is 'fatalism' whereby we do nothing and wait for events to overtake us, but evolution hasn't made us that way…or any other sentient creature if it comes to that.

seer
02-08-2016, 04:47 AM
The fact that our ‘free-will’ is illusory is really beside the point.

Yes, one more lie that the evolutionary process instilled in us.

Tassman
02-08-2016, 10:58 PM
Yes, one more lie that the evolutionary process instilled in us.

What an ignorant statement. “Evolution” is not in the business of instilling lies or anything else. It is merely the process by which different kinds of living organisms develop from earlier life forms during the history of the earth. It is verified fact beyond reasonable doubt.

JimL
02-09-2016, 03:50 AM
What an ignorant statement. “Evolution” is not in the business of instilling lies or anything else. It is merely the process by which different kinds of living organisms develop from earlier life forms during the history of the earth. It is verified fact beyond reasonable doubt.
Tass, according to your view, is it the ax murderer's fault that he is an ax murderer, or is it the inevitable result of cause and effect?

Tassman
02-09-2016, 11:24 PM
Tass, according to your view, is it the ax murderer's fault that he is an ax murderer, or is it the inevitable result of cause and effect?

Cause and effect includes our evolution as a social species with instinctive codes of behaviour including the proscription of destructive, anti-social acts such as murdering people with axes.

JimL
02-10-2016, 11:28 AM
Cause and effect includes our evolution as a social species with instinctive codes of behaviour including the proscription of destructive, anti-social acts such as murdering people with axes.
That sounds a bit like word salad Tass and I'm not sure what you mean by it. Could you be a bit more clear. A yes or no would probably suffice. So yes or no, would you say that it is the ax murderers fault that he is an ax murderer, or for him is the fact that he is an ax murderer just the inevitable effect of the causal stream?

Tassman
02-10-2016, 09:45 PM
That sounds a bit like word salad Tass and I'm not sure what you mean by it. Could you be a bit more clear. A yes or no would probably suffice. So yes or no, would you say that it is the ax murderers fault that he is an ax murderer, or for him is the fact that he is an ax murderer just the inevitable effect of the causal stream?

Yes the individual axe murderer is “causally determined” to slaughter others, but the community at large is causally determined to prevent him, because our codes of behaviour (i.e. morality) have developed via natural selection in order to restrain individual antisocial behaviour (such as axe-attacks) in order to build more cooperative groups…the benefits of being part of an altruistic group outweigh the benefits of individualism.

This is how we've evolved to be so it's irrelevant to ask if it's the "axe-murderer's fault". He must be removed from the community for the community's protection.

JimL
02-11-2016, 04:11 PM
Yes the individual axe murderer is “causally determined” to slaughter others, but the community at large is causally determined to prevent him, because our codes of behaviour (i.e. morality) have developed via natural selection in order to restrain individual antisocial behaviour (such as axe-attacks) in order to build more cooperative groups…the benefits of being part of an altruistic group outweigh the benefits of individualism.

This is how we've evolved to be so it's irrelevant to ask if it's the "axe-murderer's fault". He must be removed from the community for the community's protection.
But the community is made up of individuals, all of whom, like the ax murderer, are causally determined. That seems to me to be defining of destiny, or fate; aka fatalism. I'm not seeing how you get around that. If our actions are determined by the physics which are pre-existent even to human existence, if for better or worse, it can not be any other way, then how can it be said to be anything other than fatalism

Tassman
02-11-2016, 08:30 PM
But the community is made up of individuals, all of whom, like the ax murderer, are causally determined.

But individuals within a community are predisposed by ‘natural selection’ to function as a social unit and can override antisocial individuals such as your axe-murderer via a whole structure of law enforcement mechanisms. The maintenance of a cohesive social structure is an evolved survival mechanism and common to ‘social species’ such as us.


That seems to me to be defining of destiny, or fate; aka fatalism.

No, it's the defining of 'causal determinism'. They're similar but not the same.


I'm not seeing how you get around that. If our actions are determined by the physics which are pre-existent even to human existence, if for better or worse, it can not be any other way, then how can it be said to be anything other than fatalism?

Living things are not merely acted upon (as per 'fatalism') but can act. It may well be that such actions are predetermined but the “acts” must be performed nevertheless. And we do so, on the basis that we feel that our decisions matter, even though they're based upon an illusion of free-will. It’s how we've evolved to be.

Hence ‘determinism’ has a causal component that does not exist with ‘fatalism’.