Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Denying Self-Consciousness, Quantum and a Christian answer to the Problem of Evil

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Right in your world things like rape and murder are perfectly natural and determined by the laws of nature.
    Well, they are not supernatural! Eistein believed they were determined actions though: "I know its not the fault of the ax murderer that he is an ax murderer, but I wouldn' want to sit at tea with him." I'm not sure that I agree with Einstein, but an emotional response to the injustice of physic laws as they are currently understood is not evidence to a contrary view. Being born terribley deformed physically can't be considered good either, but it is certainly natural.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      No Augustine pretty much invented the concept based on his understanding of Scripture and you guys stole it.
      Ridiculous, if you believe in God, Augustine does not 'invent' the concept of the nature of evil in the world and human nature.
      The question is why do men make bad choices, why do they disobey God. The fall and Original Sin simply point to the fact that man chose to disobey God early on and continue to do so. So sin violates the moral will of God. That is evil, there is something deeply wrong with us. So what do you have?
      The question is 'Why do humans make bad choices?' The concept of the Fall and Original Sin does not simply point to the fact that humans disobey God. In traditional Christian beliefs it is the cause of Evil, Sin and death in the world, and not only humanity by temptation from an Evil Source. The mythical story describes humanity and nature a utopian idealic reality that ended in suffering, sin and death caused by humans Fall tempted to sin by Evil.

      Again . . .

      Source: http://bahaiteachings.org/how-do-you-define-evil


      Abdu’l-Baha presents several analogies to explain the non-existence of evil. He says that blindness exists due to the lack of sight; likewise, evil exists because it represents the absence of good; and the existence of evil is ephemeral, confined to the material world.

      Does this mean that evil does not exist? No–it means evil has no existence of its own.

      Confused? Let’s try another analogy.

      Consider the shadow of an object. That shadow only comes into being in the area where the object obscures light. The shadow has no existence of its own, for without the object there would be no shadow. Therefore we can say that the shadow is non-existent, when compared to the object; however, we cannot deny the existence of the shadow.

      © Copyright Original Source



      The bottom line is there never was a Fall from an idealic utopian myth without death, sin and suffering brought on by succumbing to Evil temptation by Adam and Eve afflicting all humanity. Humanity has always been human and fallible capable of making bad decisions.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Ridiculous, if you believe in God, Augustine does not 'invent' the concept of the nature of evil in the world and human nature.


        The question is 'Why do humans make bad choices?' The concept of the Fall and Original Sin does not simply point to the fact that humans disobey God. In traditional Christian beliefs it is the cause of Evil, Sin and death in the world, and not only humanity by temptation from an Evil Source. The mythical story describes humanity and nature a utopian idealic reality that ended in suffering, sin and death caused by humans Fall tempted to sin by Evil.

        Again . . .

        Source: http://bahaiteachings.org/how-do-you-define-evil


        Abdu’l-Baha presents several analogies to explain the non-existence of evil. He says that blindness exists due to the lack of sight; likewise, evil exists because it represents the absence of good; and the existence of evil is ephemeral, confined to the material world.

        Does this mean that evil does not exist? No–it means evil has no existence of its own.

        Confused? Let’s try another analogy.

        Consider the shadow of an object. That shadow only comes into being in the area where the object obscures light. The shadow has no existence of its own, for without the object there would be no shadow. Therefore we can say that the shadow is non-existent, when compared to the object; however, we cannot deny the existence of the shadow.

        © Copyright Original Source



        The bottom line is there never was a Fall from an idealic utopian myth without death, sin and suffering brought on by succumbing to Evil temptation by Adam and Eve afflicting all humanity. Humanity has always been human and fallible capable of making bad decisions.
        It really doesn't matter if one takes Genesis literally or metaphorically, the problem remains the same we are all infected by sin. Or as you say fallibility. And it goes back to our first parents whether they live in ideal conditions or not. And they passed on that fallible nature to all humanity, all their offspring, since we are all still obviously flawed. And in need of salvation.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          It really doesn't matter if one takes Genesis literally or metaphorically, the problem remains the same we are all infected by sin. Or as you say fallibility. And it goes back to our first parents whether they live in ideal conditions or not. And they passed on that fallible nature to all humanity, all their offspring, since we are all still obviously flawed. And in need of salvation.
          Of course it makes a difference seer, if Genesis is only metaphor then we weren't infected by sin by the first humans, they, and so we, came into the world that way. Whether you believe Genesis to be a literal history or not, all you can argue is that A+E were the first to sin, not they infected humanity by doing so.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Of course it makes a difference seer, if Genesis is only metaphor then we weren't infected by sin by the first humans, they, and so we, came into the world that way. Whether you believe Genesis to be a literal history or not, all you can argue is that A+E were the first to sin, not they infected humanity by doing so.
            It never really mattered to me how we got this way, but the fact that we are this way, that there really is something wrong. And that we need to be rescued and saved from ourselves. What is the saying? "We have met the enemy and it is us!" But it could be that our first parents did have the opportunity to set humanity on a different course, that though early obedience to God, God would have offered greater grace and help to overcome any inherent moral defects. That we could have exercised greater or even perfect control over our more animalistic nature. And that those ethical habits too could have been passed on.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Of course it makes a difference seer, if Genesis is only metaphor then we weren't infected by sin by the first humans, they, and so we, came into the world that way. Whether you believe Genesis to be a literal history or not, all you can argue is that A+E were the first to sin, not they infected humanity by doing so.

              The foundation belief of traditional Christianity for the belief that Adam and Eve, the Fall, and Original Sin is not a metaphor. It is clear that the belief of the Church Fathers, and the beliefs of the churches through the Millennia is that these are in one way or another very very real. Most Christians in the USA believe in a literal Genesis, whether YEC or OEC, or come variation, and Evil, big E, is very very real. If you go this route than you are coming closer to the belief of the Baha'i Faith.

              Do you believe the existence of Adam and Eve, the Fall and Original Sin are not real and only metaphors?
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-23-2017, 04:18 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                The foundation belief of traditional Christianity for the belief that Adam and Eve, the Fall, and Original Sin is not a metaphor. It is clear that the belief of the Church Fathers, and the beliefs of the churches through the Millennia is that these are in one way or another very very real. Most Christians in the USA believe in a literal Genesis, whether YEC or OEC, or come variation, and Evil, big E, is very very real. If you go this route than you are coming closer to the belief of the Baha'i Faith.

                Do you believe the existence of Adam and Eve, the Fall and Original Sin are not real and only metaphors?
                Of course they are not real, its a man conceived tale constructed for the practical purposes of society.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The only thing that really works here is the initial bit about having self-consciousness in order to deny self-consciousness. Your son was being completely irrational in that case (or at least has some serious work to demonstrate his position). Descartes' Meditations are pretty solid insofar as cogito ergo sum is concerned.

                  Unfortunately, everything else goes off the rails pretty quick. Just a few items of note:

                  1) Free will is not required for science. That the outcomes, or even the creation of the experiments themselves, could be considered pre-determined doesn't change that experimentation, observation, and reporting is happening. Nothing about science says truth is being discovered, only that results are found and analyzed. It's worth noting, too, that predetermination isn't a necessary component of free will denial. Not all who deny free will also claim hard determinism. Far from it.

                  2) Intentionality is not a component of self-consciousness. It's conceivable for a being to will something without knowing it does so, and it's equally conceivable for a being to exist that knows it exists without possessing any innate desires.

                  3) Your intentionality didn't override biochemistry or physics. Your intentionality is part of the biochemistry and physics. The Penfield experiments demonstrate this. Likewise, the quote from Searle doesn't establish primacy of one or the other; it establishes multiple, independent components of intentionality.

                  4) Introducing quantum mechanics is always a fatal flaw, particularly in philosophical discussions. It's not nearly understood enough to definitively establish one concept over another. That a pair of scientists attempt to establish one thing or another doesn't change that fact. There are others who have attempted to establish something else entirely. We need more evidence, and until that time the jury will remain out.

                  5) Illustrating issues mentioned in #4 comes Karl Sabbagh. The quote provided doesn't establish much of anything except some problems faced by those attempting to define what 'you' are. This is an old question, known more popularly in its Thesian ship form. What one perceives as the 'self' isn't any specific part or piece, it's the continuity between them.

                  6) Further illustrating issues in #4 is the idea of humans creating the reality we live in. This is based on one person's extrapolation from one formulation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Which is to say it's an idea based on an idea based on idea based on an idea. That's not a solid basis for anything, let alone a solution to the supposed Problem of Evil.
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    The only thing that really works here is the initial bit about having self-consciousness in order to deny self-consciousness. Your son was being completely irrational in that case (or at least has some serious work to demonstrate his position). Descartes' Meditations are pretty solid insofar as cogito ergo sum is concerned.

                    Unfortunately, everything else goes off the rails pretty quick. Just a few items of note:

                    1) Free will is not required for science. That the outcomes, or even the creation of the experiments themselves, could be considered pre-determined doesn't change that experimentation, observation, and reporting is happening. Nothing about science says truth is being discovered, only that results are found and analyzed. It's worth noting, too, that predetermination isn't a necessary component of free will denial. Not all who deny free will also claim hard determinism. Far from it.
                    I think when you say that 'nothing about science says truth is being discovered' says it all. Science is about discovering truth. And if truth isn't discovered, why pester YECs to convert to old earth? lol


                    2) Intentionality is not a component of self-consciousness. It's conceivable for a being to will something without knowing it does so, and it's equally conceivable for a being to exist that knows it exists without possessing any innate desires.
                    And you have experience of Will without knowing it is doing anything? Webster defines Will (the one appropriate here) as "used to express determination, insistence, persistence, or willfulness " What exactly is it that has determination without knowing it has determination? Will is a mental state of consciousness, not of rocks. A rock does not insist on doing anything.

                    3) Your intentionality didn't override biochemistry or physics. Your intentionality is part of the biochemistry and physics. The Penfield experiments demonstrate this. Likewise, the quote from Searle doesn't establish primacy of one or the other; it establishes multiple, independent components of intentionality.
                    This is a faith statement. You can't possibly examine my mental state. I could have given in and gone to sleep. I made a choice. Further, you can't be sure I have a mental state by observational data. All the philosophers agree that the solipsism problem is avoided only by assumption.



                    4) Introducing quantum mechanics is always a fatal flaw, particularly in philosophical discussions. It's not nearly understood enough to definitively establish one concept over another. That a pair of scientists attempt to establish one thing or another doesn't change that fact. There are others who have attempted to establish something else entirely. We need more evidence, and until that time the jury will remain out.
                    The math is quite well understood, I use the same math in my business. The problem is what it means is not well understood or agreed upon. And I always hate cops who say, you can't introduce this or that concept to a debate. What makes you the traffic cop of argumentation?


                    5) Illustrating issues mentioned in #4 comes Karl Sabbagh. The quote provided doesn't establish much of anything except some problems faced by those attempting to define what 'you' are. This is an old question, known more popularly in its Thesian ship form. What one perceives as the 'self' isn't any specific part or piece, it's the continuity between them.
                    I think we can agree that something has continuity for the extent of our lives. Good job of mistaking Theseus for Thesian. But then, we all do make mistakes including me. It was the Ship of Theseus.




                    6) Further illustrating issues in #4 is the idea of humans creating the reality we live in. This is based on one person's extrapolation from one formulation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Which is to say it's an idea based on an idea based on idea based on an idea. That's not a solid basis for anything, let alone a solution to the supposed Problem of Evil.
                    As I think I said, and you must have missed, every single interpretation of quantum requires an observer to do whatever that interpretation believes in. This places the consciousness square in the center of what happens in the universe.

                    I will say though, you weren't boring and I appreciate that.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      It really doesn't matter if one takes Genesis literally or metaphorically, the problem remains the same we are all infected by sin. Or as you say fallibility. And it goes back to our first parents whether they live in ideal conditions or not. And they passed on that fallible nature to all humanity, all their offspring, since we are all still obviously flawed. And in need of salvation.
                      It does matter if Genesis is interpreted literally of metaphorically, because if metaphorically the justification of the Fall and Original Sin is no longer meaningful in the explanation of the Fall and Original Sin in the traditional belief in the purpose of Jesus Christ. Metaphorical interpretations is the pragmatic view of liberal Christians and waters down the literal traditional interpretation to be meaningless justification of trying to make it fit in the modern scientific and more universal humanist and philosophical view of alternatives.

                      I do not believe that you nor any of the other conservative evangelical Christians would remotely interpret Genesis as pragmatically as metaphorical.

                      The claim of human being infected with evil indeed translates to 'Evil' infecting humanity from a previous idealic world without death and sin, which is an ancient mythology, and the traditional view of the Church Fathers and all of the Churches until recently, when mediocrity of some take a more pragmatic interpretation. The view of the Baha'i Faith is there is no Evil infecting humanity, but humanity Created fallible with a will, and the actions of humanity that are wrong are simply absence of Good, and humanity has always been Created as fallibly human, and the spiritual evolution and advancement of humanity toward salvation as individuals and humanity as a whole.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-25-2017, 09:04 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        It really doesn't matter if one takes Genesis literally or metaphorically, the problem remains the same we are all infected by sin. Or as you say fallibility. And it goes back to our first parents whether they live in ideal conditions or not. And they passed on that fallible nature to all humanity, all their offspring, since we are all still obviously flawed. And in need of salvation.
                        If you're prepared to take Genesis "metaphorically" then presumably you take the second Adam, Jesus...who takes away the sin of the world...metaphorically too. Yes?
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          If you're prepared to take Genesis "metaphorically" then presumably you take the second Adam, Jesus...who takes away the sin of the world...metaphorically too. Yes?
                          Nope, and that does not follow. And I did not say that I took Genesis metaphorically, one could though. I'm agnostic on the matter, though I lean towards a more literal view
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Nope, and that does not follow. And I did not say that I took Genesis metaphorically, one could though. I'm agnostic on the matter, though I lean towards a more literal view
                            Nope, that does not follow . . .

                            Problem, your sitting on the fence and getting splinters in your butt sliding back and forth, and in reality it does not work in the traditional belief of Christianity, nor your view. The Baha'i view nor mine is not remotely the view of traditional Christianity concerning the nature of Evil.

                            The issue is Evil, and the roots of very real Evil in traditional Christianity as understood by the Church Fathers and ALL the traditional Churches in history. A metaphorical approach and the absence of evil is not compatible with this history of belief in Christianity, and the conflict between Good and Evil, nor is it remotely your belief.

                            To support this just simply read the Book of Revelation, which portray's a classic black and white conflict between Good and a very real Evil.

                            The bottom line is the metaphorical belief in Genesis and the purpose of Jesus Christ is not compatible with traditional Christian beliefs concerning the nature of Evil.

                            You conveniently side stepped Tassman's question.

                            Again . . .

                            The view of the Baha'i Faith, and I, is there is no Evil infecting humanity, but humanity Created fallible with a will, and the actions of humanity that are wrong are simply absence of Good, and humanity has always been Created as fallibly human, and the spiritual evolution and advancement of humanity toward salvation as individuals and humanity as a whole.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-26-2017, 07:54 AM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Nope, that does not follow . . .
                              Snake, please stop talking to me.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Snake, please stop talking to me.
                                When backed to the wall it obvious you cannot coherently respond, and resort to name calling.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X