Compatibalism

[Tassman]

So is that a yes or no? Is everything we do, think or say determined?

What do you think seer? If your subconscious mental activity has an effect upon your choices are you exercising libertarian free-will, yes or no?

[Tassman]

This is really just the same statement.

Yes.

It is still not based on reality. In fact studying religion is based upon the fact that religions exist and one might have an interest in examining what they teach

Religions, mythologies, legends, fairy-stories and folk-tales certainly exist and one can have an interest in them, but this does not necessarily mean they are true.

Searching for evidence of of God is based upon the fact that one might be interested in actually trying to determine the validity of the possibility. If one already believes in God one might be motivated to point others to the things they have learned.

But again this is based upon the assumption that gods exist and there is no substantive evidence for this assumption. Hence “searching for evidence of God” is based upon nothing more than the improbable possibility that God or gods may exist. In the Age of Science there are better explanations of how and why the universe functions than positing the existence of a creator god.

[seer]

What do you think seer? If your subconscious mental activity has an effect upon your choices are you exercising libertarian free-will, yes or no?

Tass, in all our discussions on this subject you have never been able to bring yourself to honestly say that everything you think, do or say is determined. Why is that? You just can admit that you are a biological sock puppet, a slave to the non-rational forces of nature.

[Jedidiah]

Religions, mythologies, legends, fairy-stories and folk-tales certainly exist and one can have an interest in them, but this does not necessarily mean they are true.

I did not make any statement about the truth of religions. The rest is gobblety gook.

But again this is based upon the assumption that gods exist and there is no substantive evidence for this assumption. Hence “searching for evidence of God” is based upon nothing more than the improbable possibility that God or gods may exist. In the Age of Science there are better explanations of how and why the universe functions than positing the existence of a creator god.

That would preclude athiests and agnostics from exaining the question. It is not at all based upon your assumption.

ETA: You seem to be unable to see your own assumptions. You assume there is no God, and you assume that "scientific" evidence is the only thing that counts. You fail to be able to see that if the God of the Bible does represent the truth, there could be no "scientific" evidence as to His existence or nature since He is not a part of the created universe. The created universe (if the term created is valid) is the only thing that science can examine.

[Tassman]

Tass, in all our discussions on this subject you have never been able to bring yourself to honestly say that everything you think, do or say is determined. Why is that? You just can admit that you are a biological sock puppet, a slave to the non-rational forces of nature.

But we are not, which is why I don’t go along with your fatalistic “sock puppet” narrative. Our choices also play a role in the causal process even though at a purely physical level they’re determined. So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen.

OTOH you just can’t admit that your subconscious mental activity has an effect upon your choices, because, if you do you are admitting that "free-will" is impacted by the antecedent forces that formed your subconscious. Thus, you are not exercising the libertarian free-will. At best you’re exercising limited free-will and this is Compatabilism, not libertarian free-will. Libertarian free-will is logically incoherent, as you're been told many times.

[Tassman]

I did not make any statement about the truth of religions. The rest is gobblety gook.

If the truth of religions or folk-tales etc cannot be established you may just as well subscribe to any worldview that takes your fancy.

That would preclude athiests and agnostics from exaining the question. It is not at all based upon your assumption.

Anybody, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, can examine any belief system. You don’t have to believe in the truth of fairy tales to study their history and impact on the world.

ETA: You seem to be unable to see your own assumptions. You assume there is no God

I’m not assuming anything, I'm asserting that there is no verifiable evidence of God hence no good reason to think he exists.

and you assume that "scientific" evidence is the only thing that counts.

"Scientific" evidence is the only discipline that has the methodology to empirically verify facts, theology doesn't.

You fail to be able to see that if the God of the Bible does represent the truth, there could be no "scientific" evidence as to His existence or nature since He is not a part of the created universe. The created universe (if the term created is valid) is the only thing that science can examine.

NO, the term “created universe” is not a valid term, it assumes without credible evidence that a Creator must exist. And yes, the only thing science “can examine” is the natural universe, there’s no substantive evidence of anything more than the natural universe existing.

[Jedidiah]

If the truth of religions or folk-tales etc cannot be established you may just as well subscribe to any worldview that takes your fancy.

Anybody, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, can examine any belief system. You don’t have to believe in the truth of fairy tales to study their history and impact on the world.

I’m not assuming anything, I'm asserting that there is no verifiable evidence of God hence no good reason to think he exists.

"Scientific" evidence is the only discipline that has the methodology to empirically verify facts, theology doesn't.

NO, the term “created universe” is not a valid term, it assumes without credible evidence that a Creator must exist. And yes, the only thing science “can examine” is the natural universe, there’s no substantive evidence of anything more than the natural universe existing.

So you have no response to the things I actually wrote.

[seer]

But we are not, which is why I don’t go along with your fatalistic “sock puppet” narrative. Our choices also play a role in the causal process even though at a purely physical level they’re determined. So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen.

But Tass, that still makes everything we think, do or say determined. Our mental states are just as determined as anything else. So why do you resist honestly admitting that all we think, do or say is determined? What prevents you from admitting that? That you can't accept what it reduces you to?

OTOH you just can’t admit that your subconscious mental activity has an effect upon your choices, because, if you do you are admitting that "free-will" is impacted by the antecedent forces that formed your subconscious. Thus, you are not exercising the libertarian free-will. At best you’re exercising limited free-will and this is Compatabilism, not libertarian free-will. Libertarian free-will is logically incoherent, as you're been told many times.

I never said that subconscious mental activity doesn't play a role. Do you agree that conscious mental activity also plays a role in choice making?

[Tassman]

But Tass, that still makes everything we think, do or say determined. Our mental states are just as determined as anything else. So why do you resist honestly admitting that all we think, do or say is determined? What prevents you from admitting that? That you can't accept what it reduces you to?

I never said that subconscious mental activity doesn't play a role. Do you agree that conscious mental activity also plays a role in choice making?

So you agree that libertarian free-will is logically incoherent and that "free-will" is impacted by the antecedent forces and events that have formed your subconscious, in short ‘determined’. Good, so perhaps now we can dispense with this interminable, repetitive discussion.

[Tassman]

So you have no response to the things I actually wrote.

I did respond to the things you wrote, but we're talking different languages. Your argument basically comes down to subjective, personal experience whereas I'm claiming that because there is no verifiable evidence of God there's no good reason to think such an entity exists.

[Jedidiah]

I did respond to the things you wrote, but we're talking different languages. Your argument basically comes down to subjective, personal experience whereas I'm claiming that because there is no verifiable evidence of God there's no good reason to think such an entity exists.

In fact studying religion is based upon the fact that religions exist and one might have an interest in examining what they teach.

Your response:

Religions, mythologies, legends, fairy-stories and folk-tales certainly exist and one can have an interest in them, but this does not necessarily mean they are true.

I made no comment about mythologies, legends, fairy stories or folk-tales. I made no comment on the reality of religious beliefs. Your entire response to my evidence that your original comment that studying religion was based upon the assumption that God exists. You were wrong, but instead of accepting the correction you went off on a tangent I had made no comment about.

Then again I showed you as wrong. I said:

Searching for evidence of of God is based upon the fact that one might be interested in actually trying to determine the validity of the possibility. If one already believes in God one might be motivated to point others to the things they have learned.

Instead of responding to that you said:

But again this is based upon the assumption that gods exist and there is no substantive evidence for this assumption. Hence “searching for evidence of God” is based upon nothing more than the improbable possibility that God or gods may exist. In the Age of Science there are better explanations of how and why the universe functions than positing the existence of a creator god.

You responded as though I had made some sort of claim instead of pointing out that seeking evidence can be done to determine the reality of what you are testing.


Searching for evidence of of God is based upon the fact that one might be interested in actually trying to determine the validity of the possibility. If one already believes in God one might be motivated to point others to the things they have learned.[/QUOTE]

I think you are afraid to make an honest answer to my posts. I would like to go into this a bit more, but I will be away for a couple weeks.

[Tassman]

Your response: I made no comment about mythologies, legends, fairy stories or folk-tales. I made no comment on the reality of religious beliefs. Your entire response to my evidence that your original comment that studying religion was based upon the assumption that God exists. You were wrong, but instead of accepting the correction you went off on a tangent I had made no comment about.

Religious beliefs are no different to beliefs in mythology, legends, fairy stories or folk-tales etc. None of them are can be shown to be true and therefore none of them have anything to teach...as you claimed...except perhaps as allegories.

You responded as though I had made some sort of claim instead of pointing out that seeking evidence can be done to determine the reality of what you are testing.


Searching for evidence of of God is based upon the fact that one might be interested in actually trying to determine the validity of the possibility. If one already believes in God one might be motivated to point others to the things they have learned.

Why raise the “validity of the possibility” if not based upon an assumption that gods may exist? Why would one think that gods may exist in the first place...tradition? Since we have no evidence for gods existing,“determining the validity of the possibility” of gods is merely commentary on unverifiable beings, more or less like building a philosophy on Santa Claus.

I think you are afraid to make an honest answer to my posts.

I think the reverse is true.

[seer]

So you agree that libertarian free-will is logically incoherent and that "free-will" is impacted by the antecedent forces and events that have formed your subconscious, in short ‘determined’. Good, so perhaps now we can dispense with this interminable, repetitive discussion.

Nonsense, do you deny that conscious rational deliberations play a role in decision making? And why won't you directly admit that in your worldview all our thoughts and acts are determined?

[Tassman]

Nonsense, do you deny that conscious rational deliberations play a role in decision making? And why won't you directly admit that in your worldview all our thoughts and acts are determined?

You have already acknowledged that one’s subconscious, which comprises a lifetime of antecedent events and experiences, determines the decision-making processe...at least in part. So you cannot ague for ‘libertarian free-will’. It’s logically incoherent.

[seer]

You have already acknowledged that one’s subconscious, which comprises a lifetime of antecedent events and experiences, determines the decision-making processe...at least in part. So you cannot ague for ‘libertarian free-will’. It’s logically incoherent.

How is it incoherent if conscious rational deliberations play a real role? And I did not agree subconscious is the only driver in the decision making process. And again Tass, why won't you directly admit that in your worldview all our thoughts and acts are determined? Come on, I want to see you say it - just once.