Jump to content

Debate religion? Yes, please!


BadKarma

Recommended Posts

A being that knows everything knows every choice that will be made. We can't choose something else because it already knows our choices. Omniscience and free will are literally incompatible ideas in any logical universe.

You've said this before in a number of ways and in a number of posts, Bad, and I must finally call you on it. The omniscience you're imputing to God is God's, not ours. The free will you're imputing to us is ours. An omniscient God can (and I believe does) allow us to exercise our free will. God may or may not know what will happen; that doesn't mean that we cannot choose our actions. My holding a religious belief doesn't mean that I am therefore simply a pawn on God's chessboard. If you can't understand that that is not the universal concept of religious belief, then you should not be trying to fit a religious viewpoint--any religious viewpoint--into your knowledge base, because it simply won't fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A being that knows everything knows every choice that will be made. We can't choose something else because it already knows our choices. Omniscience and free will are literally incompatible ideas in any logical universe.

You've said this before in a number of ways and in a number of posts, Bad, and I must finally call you on it. The omniscience you're imputing to God is God's, not ours. The free will you're imputing to us is ours. An omniscient God can (and I believe does) allow us to exercise our free will. God may or may not know what will happen; that doesn't mean that we cannot choose our actions. My holding a religious belief doesn't mean that I am therefore simply a pawn on God's chessboard. If you can't understand that that is not the universal concept of religious belief, then you should not be trying to fit a religious viewpoint--any religious viewpoint--into your knowledge base, because it simply won't fit.

As an atheist, I have to agree with Sally on this one.

BK, there are different notions of what free will means. Implicitly you have adopted what is known as the libertarian position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29

This notion of free will is incompatible with physical determinism, so it is probably incompatible with divine foreknowledge also. That's why libertarian pro-freewill theologians tend to be Open Theists (or their equivalent in non-Christian traditions), who believe that God doesn't know the future despite being omniscient, because the future doesn't yet exist.

However...

The libertarian position on free will is not universally accepted, and its main rival (compatibilism) is actually more popular among contemporary philosophers, last I checked at least. Compatibility free will is, as it is named, compatible with physical determinism, so there's no reason it should be inconsistent with divine omniscience either, even in the "knowing the future" sense.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Michael

- free will compatibilitist

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've said this before in a number of ways and in a number of posts, Bad, and I must finally call you on it. The omniscience you're imputing to God is God's, not ours. The free will you're imputing to us is ours. An omniscient God can (and I believe does) allow us to exercise our free will. God may or may not know what will happen; that doesn't mean that we cannot choose our actions. My holding a religious belief doesn't mean that I am therefore simply a pawn on God's chessboard. If you can't understand that that is not the universal concept of religious belief, then you should not be trying to fit a religious viewpoint--any religious viewpoint--into your knowledge base, because it simply won't fit.

I never said it was a concept of religious belief. I know that theists of all sorts believe they have free will (and I think they do, too, regardless of the definitions of their deities). But pure free will IS contradictory with omniscience. You can't have a choice or perform an action when a being knows what that choice/action will be.

If God isn't omniscient (only mostly so), then there is no inherent contradiction. I'm simply pointing out that the two things cannot logically exist together. They just can't.

If God knows everything that was and is and will be in all instances, choice is an illusion. The only way around it is to say that God is not subject to the Law of Non-Contradiction. I fully realize this is not what you see, but consider it for a moment: If God knows what you're going to choose before you choose it, was it ever a choice at all? It knows the future, and the future has already been predetermined in a way that will make you choose that choice. If God DOESN'T know what you're going to choose, that's fine. It's allowing free will by either not having that ability or willing itself not to have it. But that means there's a gap in its knowledge, and it shouldn't be called omniscient. It should only be called, like, MOSTLY all-knowing.

Or, I suppose, a theist could say that God knows everything as it happens but doesn't yet know the future because the future doesn't yet exist... I could almost agree with this one, except that contradicts the whole notion of biblical prophecy/foreknowledge and End Time theology. It also requires an incredibly liberal definition of both omniscience and omnipresence--definitions that make the words mean wholly separate things.

Although I don't recall saying this too often. I mean, I MIGHT have said it in that one thread a month or two ago that turned into a rabid fiasco, but at most I've mentioned the illogicality of omniscience+choice like, twice (at least on AVEN, that is).

Don't be so caught up with analyzing the finger that you forget what it's pointing at, for if I could simply outright say what it is I am trying to show in the manner in which you seem to understand, then I would have already done so. However, I am not that skilled, and even if I were, such a translation would only be a facsimile, a shadow. I may as well describe colour to the blind for all that it would be worth.

We're speaking different languages here, and the problem, is that you're trying to understand me in the language that you are familiar with, the language that you understand, rather than understanding what it is I am saying within its own context. You're trying to play checkers while I'm playing blackjack.

This applies also to what you're doing here with Religion. Science is its own language, Religion is its own language, and while they seem to use similar vocabulary, it is the grammar, the way the game is played is different. Each have their own context, each their own set of 'rules'. And if these aren't taken into account, you can skew the language, misinterpret it, and waste time over nonsensical non-problems spawned from the misinterpretation. Such as interpreting of science as if it were a kind of religious belief and feeling (e.g. 'belief' in evolution), or of religion as if it were scientific theory (e.g. belief as 'delusion'). Both the religious and the scientific do this, and frankly, it's not surprising, given our form and particular perspective.

The trouble here is this: you don't seem able to discern where your preconceptions begin and where your understanding ends. In fact, after having it pointed out to you by a number of people, and continuing to march on beside the point, I am extremely skeptical of your understanding of Religion, and that you have done little more than affirm a particular perspective over that of others here, simply because you are inclined to it, because it convinces you. Being open to thought is one thing, but being open to only one manner of thought, doesn't seem to me to be very open at all, only the illusion of such.

I cannot convince you that such-and-such a manner is a better way of looking at things, because there is no one way of looking at things. To argue for such a notion would be ridiculous. I can only do so much. I can point out certain tricks and traps in one's thought that you may encounter, but it is up to you whether or not you can avoid them, or fall into them head first.

Okay. I'll see if I can make this short (and I always say that, but this time I really mean it).

I realize I'm speaking a "different language". But I still assert--and am waiting for a reason not to assert it--that you can either speak logically or illogically. It's a true dichotomy. If I'm speaking logically (which I am), and religious people aren't speaking "my language", then what else could their languages be but illogical? I'd like to show people the courtesy of analyzing what they say as if it were logical instead of illogical, hence why I keep talking the way I do. Illogicality is not a pathway to understanding or truth, and if religious people are not speaking logically, then what am I supposed to do but to mildly chuckle and be condescending (which I don't want to do)?

I'd like to think I'm being particularly kind in assuming that religious people are capable of being logical. But if you tell me many times that "we're not speaking the same language", what am I supposed to do with that claim? Am I supposed to say to them, "Well, I'm the one being logical, and you're not speaking logically, so you're illogical"? I personally think that's far more insulting than (or at least as insulting as) saying the supernatural is indistinguishable, in my worldview, from delusion.

I am open to many thoughts, but I am not open to not being logical. In that I admit clear close-mindedness, and I think I have perfectly justifiable reason to do so. I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that it's better to be illogical than it is to be logical, and I have no reason (nor have I been provided with any) that there's anything other than those two methodologies. I'm quite keen on avoiding fallacy, and I'm quite keen on not being dogmatic or stubborn regarding ideas, but there is no middle ground between logic and non-logic. I'm not keen on not being logical.

Don't even "convince me" that there's a better manner. Just provide me with an example. Provide me with any remote example of how I could view the world that isn't either logical or illogical. It doesn't have to be better or worse. It just needs to be an example, and then I can go study or ponder it and at least learn that I'm using a false dichotomy. As it stands, I keep looking at your posts and reading them, essentially, as this:

"You are speaking your language. Your language is logic. Religious people don't speak that same language, so there's a bunch of miscommunication because you're speaking logic and they're speaking not logic. Try to figure out how to be bilingual."

I'm sorry if this next statement bothers you. I really am. But there IS a good way of looking at things, and that way is through logic and deduction. From what I can see, I'm the one currently speaking it, and I'm being gracious enough to assume that other people are also speaking it, because assuming the alternative is an insult to their intelligence. You're telling me they're NOT speaking what I'm speaking, and since the only alternative to logic is not logic, you're telling me that they're not speaking logically, or that their speeches shouldn't be judged logically. Again, I find that far more degrading to my opponent(s) than any assertions about possible delusions. There's literally no reason whatsoever that I can possibly come up with that would justify NOT using logic when talking. Logic is the basis for all understanding in the universe. It's the basis for the universe itself, from what we can so far surmise.

tl;dr (since I'm still too incompetent to properly summarize things) If I'm speaking logic, and my opponents are speaking a different language, then you're telling me they're speaking not logic. And then you're telling me I need to learn not logic, because it's just as good at figuring out truth as logic. I reject that notion as positively absurd and insulting to my opponents. I will continue being logical, and if that means I can never find out the non-truths of non-logic, I think I can live with that. If you can provide me with an example of something that is neither logic or non-logic (something that I currently feel to be impossible because of the Law of the Excluded Middle, but I'm not rejecting the possibility outright), then I'll admit that I've fallen victim to a false dichotomy, but until then, I'm going to show people the courtesy of not treating them as lunatics. I think people deserve that much no matter what they believe in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an atheist, I have to agree with Sally on this one.

BK, there are different notions of what free will means. Implicitly you have adopted what is known as the libertarian position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29

This notion of free will is incompatible with physical determinism, so it is probably incompatible with divine foreknowledge also. That's why libertarian pro-freewill theologians tend to be Open Theists (or their equivalent in non-Christian traditions), who believe that God doesn't know the future despite being omniscient, because the future doesn't yet exist.

However...

The libertarian position on free will is not universally accepted, and its main rival (compatibilism) is actually more popular among contemporary philosophers, last I checked at least. Compatibility free will is, as it is named, compatible with physical determinism, so there's no reason it should be inconsistent with divine omniscience either, even in the "knowing the future" sense.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Michael

- free will compatibilitist

I know what I've adopted, Michael (just saying). And compatibilism still denies people the ability to have a non-deterministic future, from everything I've read (including what I've read so far with your link). I don't consider that a very good solution to the free will debate. It's one of my biggest disagreements regarding Daniel Dennett's philosophy, actually.

I'll read more into it and see if there's some way out of this issue, but determinism of any sort (even scientific determinism) is exactly the "playing on God's chess board" that I (and Sally) don't think is really befitting of a loving God. Even if a person can choose good or bad things somehow from a compatibilist worldview, they're still physically determined to do something that God already knows about, and that's a problem.

Since it is the very definition of the compatibilist free will that I take an objection toward--a definition that Kant adequately referred to as word jugglery--this may be difficult to reconcile. All a compatibilist has demonstrated is that SOMETHING works with determinism and they wish to call it free will. As it stands, I maintain my current point-of-view because I find the compatibilist definition of free will unacceptable, but I will nevertheless read more about it and come back later with a potentially different view, because I've only spent some time studying compatibilism and in-depth study might somehow be able to address my problems with it.

That all being said, I don't know if physical determinism, in its strictest sense, is even capable of happening in this universe. Quantum uncertainty kinda nips that right in the bud by making it almost impossible for true physical determinism to exist. There's a good video of Michio Kaku briefly talking about this:

At any length, I have to get to bed. You peeps have a good night!

Edit: I'm unaware of any definitive polls regarding philosophical popularity of compatibilism and incompatibilism. I know there are modern philosophers who are in both camps, but I've never seen anything that categorizes which is more common. If you have a source for that, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, saying "I think this one is more popular" is not a particularly valid statement to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll read more into it and see if there's some way out of this issue, but determinism of any sort (even scientific determinism) is exactly the "playing on God's chess board" that I (and Sally) don't think is really befitting of a loving God.

I've never said that God is a "loving God". Don't assume that whatever religionist you're talking to or about has the same God-view that you've either been taught to hold in your childhood, or hold now.

So that's another mindboggling religionist concept for you: a non-interventionist, non-loving God. Or perhaps you think those two God-views go together (which they don't always).

And that's the key: Just as you can't logic us out of our God-views, you can't logic yourself out of your God-views. Childhood indoctrination really works, even when its Presbyterianism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chaos Heart

Just popping in, having not read any posts in detail, so forgive me if I speak out of ignorance. But it seems there is some controversy over free-will and God being omniscient.

I fail to see how the two are related. Just because someone knows the future does not mean you do not have free will. It simply means they know the choice you will make, before you make it. For instance, you have the free will to eat at either, let's say, Taco Bell or McDonalds. Now let's assume I am an omniscient deity. I know what your choice will be. This does not mean, however, that the choice is still not there for you to make. I simply know what you will decide.

So I don't understand how the two conflict. It seems fairly straight-forward to me that they can coexist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So that's another mindboggling religionist concept for you: a non-interventionist, non-loving God. Or perhaps you think those two God-views go together (which they don't always).

To me, that sounds like a deistic god. But, if you believe in that kind of god, you're not believing in the god of judaism. Because that god is clearly interventionist.

And if you believe in deistic god, you're basically worshiping the laws of nature, without any kind of mythology or dogma, so i don't see any reason to call it god.

EDIT: Many atheists talk specifically about christian god because that's the religion most people in western countries are most familiar with. And since there are also originally jewish scriptures in the christian bible these two concepts of god can be very easily confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just popping in, having not read any posts in detail, so forgive me if I speak out of ignorance. But it seems there is some controversy over free-will and God being omniscient.

I fail to see how the two are related. Just because someone knows the future does not mean you do not have free will. It simply means they know the choice you will make, before you make it. For instance, you have the free will to eat at either, let's say, Taco Bell or McDonalds. Now let's assume I am an omniscient deity. I know what your choice will be. This does not mean, however, that the choice is still not there for you to make. I simply know what you will decide.

So I don't understand how the two conflict. It seems fairly straight-forward to me that they can coexist.

If an omniscient god knows beforehand what you will choose you lack the ability to alter your choice (Because the omniscient being would already know this), and therefore have no free will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chaos Heart

Just popping in, having not read any posts in detail, so forgive me if I speak out of ignorance. But it seems there is some controversy over free-will and God being omniscient.

I fail to see how the two are related. Just because someone knows the future does not mean you do not have free will. It simply means they know the choice you will make, before you make it. For instance, you have the free will to eat at either, let's say, Taco Bell or McDonalds. Now let's assume I am an omniscient deity. I know what your choice will be. This does not mean, however, that the choice is still not there for you to make. I simply know what you will decide.

So I don't understand how the two conflict. It seems fairly straight-forward to me that they can coexist.

If an omniscient god knows beforehand what you will choose you lack the ability to alter your choice (Because the omniscient being would already know this), and therefore have no free will.

What? How do you come to that conclusion? Just because you will not alter your choice does not mean you do not have free will. It's not as if, by knowing what you will choose, you didn't have the free choice to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just popping in, having not read any posts in detail, so forgive me if I speak out of ignorance. But it seems there is some controversy over free-will and God being omniscient.

I fail to see how the two are related. Just because someone knows the future does not mean you do not have free will. It simply means they know the choice you will make, before you make it. For instance, you have the free will to eat at either, let's say, Taco Bell or McDonalds. Now let's assume I am an omniscient deity. I know what your choice will be. This does not mean, however, that the choice is still not there for you to make. I simply know what you will decide.

So I don't understand how the two conflict. It seems fairly straight-forward to me that they can coexist.

If an omniscient god knows beforehand what you will choose you lack the ability to alter your choice (Because the omniscient being would already know this), and therefore have no free will.

What? How do you come to that conclusion? Just because you will not alter your choice does not mean you do not have free will. It's not as if, by knowing what you will choose, you didn't have the free choice to make.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you're not altering your choice. It's about the fact that you are unable to alter your choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chaos Heart

Just popping in, having not read any posts in detail, so forgive me if I speak out of ignorance. But it seems there is some controversy over free-will and God being omniscient.

I fail to see how the two are related. Just because someone knows the future does not mean you do not have free will. It simply means they know the choice you will make, before you make it. For instance, you have the free will to eat at either, let's say, Taco Bell or McDonalds. Now let's assume I am an omniscient deity. I know what your choice will be. This does not mean, however, that the choice is still not there for you to make. I simply know what you will decide.

So I don't understand how the two conflict. It seems fairly straight-forward to me that they can coexist.

If an omniscient god knows beforehand what you will choose you lack the ability to alter your choice (Because the omniscient being would already know this), and therefore have no free will.

What? How do you come to that conclusion? Just because you will not alter your choice does not mean you do not have free will. It's not as if, by knowing what you will choose, you didn't have the free choice to make.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you're not altering your choice. It's about the fact that you are unable to alter your choice.

But you're not unable to alter your choice. There is nothing preventing you from doing so. Knowing the future does not prevent you from altering your choice. It simply means you know what choice they will make in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you're not unable to alter your choice. There is nothing preventing you from doing so. Knowing the future does not prevent you from altering your choice. It simply means you know what choice they will make in the end.

Let's say you decide you're going to school. The omniscient being knows this. But while walking to school you alter your choice and go to library instead. But if the omniscient being exists it has always known that you'll eventually decide to go to the library instead of school. Which means you haven't actually chosen anything: Whatever you do, you'd have to go to the library instead of the school, because the omniscient being knows what you'll do.

It's like in a scifi story with time travel, but in which you can't change the past. Everything has, essentially, already happened and nothing can change it. Humans just go along their predetermined lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll read more into it and see if there's some way out of this issue, but determinism of any sort (even scientific determinism) is exactly the "playing on God's chess board" that I (and Sally) don't think is really befitting of a loving God.

I've never said that God is a "loving God". Don't assume that whatever religionist you're talking to or about has the same God-view that you've either been taught to hold in your childhood, or hold now.

So that's another mindboggling religionist concept for you: a non-interventionist, non-loving God. Or perhaps you think those two God-views go together (which they don't always).

And that's the key: Just as you can't logic us out of our God-views, you can't logic yourself out of your God-views. Childhood indoctrination really works, even when its Presbyterianism.

It's not mind-boggling in the slightest, Sally. But as Human said, that's a deistic God. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, when you were talking about me assuming that God has you as a pawn on a chessboard, that you thought it generous and loving of the God to not be manipulated by it. If your God is a dick, that's fine and dandy with me. But now I question why you wish to worship something like that.

I assume a particular God view when someone doesn't make it explicitly clear what they think God is because it saves time. Many people have a similar idea of God, and part of that similar idea is that it is a loving God. If your God is exactly as much of a wrathful, jealous prick as his first books suggest, then I will assume no longer that you think he's loving. But then I have these three questions to ask:

1. Why WOULDN'T you think that a God which is not loving wouldn't feel perfectly keen on manipulating people? He even displays a desire to remove his precious "free will" gift in the Moses story by hardening Pharaoh's heart just so that he can be vain about the judgements he wants to throw around, and unless you take an incredibly skewed definition of free will, none of us have it anyway because we're all predestined to do everything we think we have an ability not to do.

2. Why do you worship this God? What is even the point of worshiping a being that doesn't ever intervene with anything and doesn't show any particular love for humanity? That's a deistic God, which is most certainly not Yahweh unless you interpret everything in the book as allegory.

3. Why do you believe that such a God exists? If even your book is allegory, as you are wont to keep saying when we discuss it, then there's no particular reason to trust ANY part of it as demonstrable or true. It's all one big story. And if it's all one big allegory involving a non-allegorical God, how did you make the jump and conclude that the God wasn't also just allegory?

I'm having a difficult time, given what you've currently espoused about your views on the matter, figuring out where you could have concluded that your deity exists as it does. It seems from my side that you've got scant biblical support for it because you're keen on declaring much of the book as a big story, and it doesn't seem like a wish fulfillment thing because that deity doesn't seem to be, y'know, DOING anything for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an atheist, I have to agree with Sally on this one.

BK, there are different notions of what free will means. Implicitly you have adopted what is known as the libertarian position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29

This notion of free will is incompatible with physical determinism, so it is probably incompatible with divine foreknowledge also. That's why libertarian pro-freewill theologians tend to be Open Theists (or their equivalent in non-Christian traditions), who believe that God doesn't know the future despite being omniscient, because the future doesn't yet exist.

However...

The libertarian position on free will is not universally accepted, and its main rival (compatibilism) is actually more popular among contemporary philosophers, last I checked at least. Compatibility free will is, as it is named, compatible with physical determinism, so there's no reason it should be inconsistent with divine omniscience either, even in the "knowing the future" sense.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Michael

- free will compatibilitist

I know what I've adopted, Michael (just saying). And compatibilism still denies people the ability to have a non-deterministic future, from everything I've read (including what I've read so far with your link). I don't consider that a very good solution to the free will debate. It's one of my biggest disagreements regarding Daniel Dennett's philosophy, actually.

Compatibilism does not deny people the ability to have a non-deterministic future. Compatibilism says that free will is compatible with determinism (and by extension, divine foreknowledge) but is agnostic about whether determinism or indeed divine foreknowledge is real. (I am a compatibilist, but as an atheist I obviously don't believe in divine foreknowledge.)

I'll read more into it and see if there's some way out of this issue, but determinism of any sort (even scientific determinism) is exactly the "playing on God's chess board" that I (and Sally) don't think is really befitting of a loving God. Even if a person can choose good or bad things somehow from a compatibilist worldview, they're still physically determined to do something that God already knows about, and that's a problem.

Since it is the very definition of the compatibilist free will that I take an objection toward--a definition that Kant adequately referred to as word jugglery--this may be difficult to reconcile. All a compatibilist has demonstrated is that SOMETHING works with determinism and they wish to call it free will. As it stands, I maintain my current point-of-view because I find the compatibilist definition of free will unacceptable, but I will nevertheless read more about it and come back later with a potentially different view, because I've only spent some time studying compatibilism and in-depth study might somehow be able to address my problems with it.

Compatibilism v. Libertarianism could probably do with its own thread sometime.

That all being said, I don't know if physical determinism, in its strictest sense, is even capable of happening in this universe. Quantum uncertainty kinda nips that right in the bud by making it almost impossible for true physical determinism to exist. There's a good video of Michio Kaku briefly talking about this:

I'm well aware of quantum indeterminism of course; it's largely an open question though whether the process of conscious decision making is essentially quantum, or whether it falls in the classical realm. A back of the envelope calculation seems to suggest the latter, but this should be treated with a pinch of salt.

Edit: I'm unaware of any definitive polls regarding philosophical popularity of compatibilism and incompatibilism. I know there are modern philosophers who are in both camps, but I've never seen anything that categorizes which is more common. If you have a source for that, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, saying "I think this one is more popular" is not a particularly valid statement to me.

I can't remember where I read this so I'll retract this claim. However. I'm not arguing that if most philosophers believe it, it must be right - only that, given the libertarian position is not unanimously or even near-unanimously agreed on, you'd better make a good case for it if your argument rests on it, rather than just implicitly assume it.

EDIT: and yes what Sally described sounds similar to Deism. There are some similarities between Reform Judaism and Deism, though there's variation within the former on this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I implicitly assume libertarianism when discussing true free will is that the compatibilist definition of free will is hardly actually free. All the second one means is that you aren't physically coerced to do things. My definition of the term is the basic—and I feel legitimate—definition of "the ability to not have your choices or actions predicted or predetermined by anything except yourself".

I'd actually still argue that even compatibilist free will doesn't exist in a universe where a being knows everything, because it would also have foreknowledge of all human thoughts and "choices". This is, of course, a bit irrelevant as we must first determine if the being exists, and the burden is on a claimant.

And on that note, let me clarify my position and motive within this thread. I'm seeing assumptions that it is my goal to "win" this argument with logic. But I am not a sophist. I am NOT trying to somehow convince the religionists here to convert to atheism; you can all believe what you want to believe. I, however, want to know the truth, and I know that the only honest way to go about such a journey is with skepticism and logical inquiry. I want to see if someone somewhere actually has a remotely good reason—that is, something that is neither fallacious, unfalsifiable, or equivocable with another claim—to posit the existence of any sort of deity. Do I think it's likely that I'll find it here, when nobody's been able to properly do it in recorded history? Honestly, I don't, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be fatalistic about it. Maybe someone here has actually got something, and it doesn't hurt to look (also this thread prevents me from derailing other ones, so that's a bonus).

So let's change up the tone of this thread. All spiritualists/religionists of any sort, please define the aspects of your particular supernatural entity(ies) and subsequently provide your best reason(s) that that particular entity(ies) exists (even if it's just a sound logical proof). If you think you have hard evidence, please mention that as well and give your source(s) of this evidence.

If someone can do this, I will be much obliged. And now I must get to work. Ciao!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I implicitly assume libertarianism when discussing true free will is that the compatibilist definition of free will is hardly actually free.

That is your position. Mine is that the libertarian notion of free will is an incoherent mess, and - even if it can somehow be made sense of - there's little or no evidence to suggest LFW exists in our universe. All the arguments I know of for free will (introspection, foundation of morality etc.) are perfectly compatible with CFW, as far as I can tell.

Either way, it's a point that has to be argued not just stated. If I had a little more time I'd start a new thread on it.

My definition of the term is the basic—and I feel legitimate—definition of "the ability to not have your choices or actions predicted or predetermined by anything except yourself".

That is (possibly) a coherent notion of free will (though the point is debatable). However I don't see any evidence that this kind of free will has to exist in our universe. Nor is this particular notion needed to found morality (the usual criticism of anti-FW positions).

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is your position. Mine is that the libertarian notion of free will is an incoherent mess, and - even if it can somehow be made sense of - there's little or no evidence to suggest LFW exists in our universe. All the arguments I know of for free will (introspection, foundation of morality etc.) are perfectly compatible with CFW, as far as I can tell.

Either way, it's a point that has to be argued not just stated. If I had a little more time I'd start a new thread on it.

Agreed on the argument part. Let's make a thread later today.

That is (possibly) a coherent notion of free will (though the point is debatable). However I don't see any evidence that this kind of free will has to exist in our universe. Nor is this particular notion needed to found morality (the usual criticism of anti-FW positions).

Let us be clear here; I don't actually have a personal stance on whether true free will exists. The universe may well be COMPLETELY deterministic. What I'm saying is that the compatibilist free will concept is hardly true freedom, nor is it the sort of free will implied in the Abrahamic holy books (I find it quite clear that the free will spoken of in those books is of the more incompatibilist sort). Further, I still posit that even compatibilist free will is not, well, compatible with true omniscience. I do not argue that it is not compatible with foreknowledge alone, but actual, legitimate knowledge of EVERYTHING rules out even the compatibilist notions of freedom, as even one's thoughts must also be predetermined in accordance with the all-knowing's understanding.

Again, I think we agree that this is a better debate for a completely new thread. It would do the topic more justice and also prevent this current thread from being derailed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chaos Heart

But you're not unable to alter your choice. There is nothing preventing you from doing so. Knowing the future does not prevent you from altering your choice. It simply means you know what choice they will make in the end.

Let's say you decide you're going to school. The omniscient being knows this. But while walking to school you alter your choice and go to library instead. But if the omniscient being exists it has always known that you'll eventually decide to go to the library instead of school. Which means you haven't actually chosen anything: Whatever you do, you'd have to go to the library instead of the school, because the omniscient being knows what you'll do.

What? Yes. You have chosen. Just because someone knows what you will choose, does not mean you did not make a choice. You made the choice to go to school, and then you made the choice to the library instead. Just because I knew that's what you would do, does not change that you made that choice of your own will. It simply means I knew that's the choice you would make. Nothing more.

You are making huge jumps in logic that do not connect.

It's like in a scifi story with time travel, but in which you can't change the past. Everything has, essentially, already happened and nothing can change it. Humans just go along their predetermined lives.

You make it sound as if God had created the future. that is, again, a huge jump from simply being omniscient. There's nothing predetermined about our lives if someone knows the future. They simply know what choices people will make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Yes. You have chosen. Just because someone knows what you will choose, does not mean you did not make a choice. You made the choice to go to school, and then you made the choice to the library instead. Just because I knew that's what you would do, does not change that you made that choice of your own will. It simply means I knew that's the choice you would make. Nothing more.

You are making huge jumps in logic that do not connect.

I don't think you know how omniscience works.

You are presented with two options: A and B. In a non-deterministic universe, either choice is possible. But if a being exists that knows everything at all points in time, it will know your "choice" before you're even presented with it. It KNOWS, with absolute certainty, that you'll go with A. You may think you have a choice, but you don't. Choice requires variety, and if you are predestined to go with option A, then there is only an illusion of variety. A being which knows all possible choices but doesn't know which will be made is compatible with non-deterministic, "true" free will, but such a being is not truly all-knowing, either. A truly omniscient being—one that knows exactly which "choices" are made—is one that removes the ability to change one's mind.

This is not a "leap" in logic. If your choice is known before you choose it, it was never a choice. It was inescapable fate.

You make it sound as if God had created the future. that is, again, a huge jump from simply being omniscient. There's nothing predetermined about our lives if someone knows the future. They simply know what choices people will make.

Lol. Just seriously, lol. You really don't see the contradiction of "It's not that our choices are predetermined, it's just that our choices are predetermined!"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chaos Heart
I don't think you know how omniscience works.

You are presented with two options: A and B. In a non-deterministic universe, either choice is possible. But if a being exists that knows everything at all points in time, it will know your "choice" before you're even presented with it. It KNOWS, with absolute certainty, that you'll go with A. You may think you have a choice, but you don't. Choice requires variety, and if you are predestined to go with option A, then there is only an illusion of variety. A being which knows all possible choices but doesn't know which will be made is compatible with non-deterministic, "true" free will, but such a being is not truly all-knowing, either. A truly omniscient being—one that knows exactly which "choices" are made—is one that removes the ability to change one's mind.

This is not a "leap" in logic. If your choice is known before you choose it, it was never a choice. It was inescapable fate.

You make it sound as if the person is bound to A. Such is not the case. Merely knowing that someone will choose A does not mean they are bound to A. It just means that, when they are presented with the choice, you know what they will pick.

This is not the same as things being "predetermined".

Lol. Just seriously, lol. You really don't see the contradiction of "It's not that our choices are predetermined, it's just that our choices are predetermined!"?

I never said that choices were predetermined. You are, again, making jumps in logic that have no connection. Knowing the future =/= the future is predetermined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you know how omniscience works.

You are presented with two options: A and B. In a non-deterministic universe, either choice is possible. But if a being exists that knows everything at all points in time, it will know your "choice" before you're even presented with it. It KNOWS, with absolute certainty, that you'll go with A. You may think you have a choice, but you don't. Choice requires variety, and if you are predestined to go with option A, then there is only an illusion of variety. A being which knows all possible choices but doesn't know which will be made is compatible with non-deterministic, "true" free will, but such a being is not truly all-knowing, either. A truly omniscient being—one that knows exactly which "choices" are made—is one that removes the ability to change one's mind.

This is not a "leap" in logic. If your choice is known before you choose it, it was never a choice. It was inescapable fate.

You make it sound as if the person is bound to A. Such is not the case. Merely knowing that someone will choose A does not mean they are bound to A. It just means that, when they are presented with the choice, you know what they will pick.

This is not the same as things being "predetermined".

Lol. Just seriously, lol. You really don't see the contradiction of "It's not that our choices are predetermined, it's just that our choices are predetermined!"?

I never said that choices were predetermined. You are, again, making jumps in logic that have no connection. Knowing the future =/= the future is predetermined.

Lol! Thanks for the laugh, man. I needed that.

Now go study some more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chaos Heart
Lol! Thanks for the laugh, man. I needed that.

Now go study some more.

What a brilliant way to pass something off without thinking about it. Or perhaps because you know you are wrong?

Sad, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol! Thanks for the laugh, man. I needed that.

Now go study some more.

What a brilliant way to pass something off without thinking about it. Or perhaps because you know you are wrong?

Sad, really.

No, I know I'm right on this particular matter, and I know by previous incursions with you that you don't actually understand logic. I've spent years pondering this very question, and I've demonstrated multiple times in this thread alone that I can realize when I'm wrong. I've demonstrated merely by my worldview that I am capable of admitting great wrongness and changing accordingly. But I'm not wrong with this, you don't understand causality or logical absolutes or the parameters of omniscience/omnipresence, and I find no reason to even try and convince you any longer, as you've proven before—from your rigid incapability to accept even the smallest notions of personal fallability and misunderstanding of basic logical deduction—that you cannot change your mind.

Of the two of us, I have demonstrated proper understanding of fallacy. Of the two of us, I have demonstrated that I can adher to the Three Laws. Of the two of us, I'm the one who's demonstrated my ability to throw away my ENTIRE worldview, parts of my direct family, and the promise of an afterlife because of a lack of support for my old beliefs.

If you don't want to ever admit fallability, that's your prerogative, but those who never admit wrongness can never learn rightness.

And people call ME arrogant. I mean, I'm not denying that I sometimes am, but seriously... Sheesh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chaos Heart
No, I know I'm right on this particular matter, and I know by previous incursions with you that you don't actually understand logic.

[Citation Needed]

I've spent years pondering this very question, and I've demonstrated multiple times in this thread alone that I can realize when I'm wrong. I've demonstrated merely by my worldview that I am capable of admitting great wrongness and changing accordingly. But I'm not wrong with this, you don't understand causality or the parameters of omniscience/omnipresence, and I find no reason to even try and convince you any longer, as you've proven before—from your rigid incapability to accept even the smallest notions of personal fallability and misunderstanding of basic logical deduction—that you cannot change your mind.

Translation: "Baaaawwww my fragile pride has been hurt! I'm not going to bother to try and justify my opinion anymore you meanie!"

Of the two of us, I have demonstrated proper understanding of fallacy. Of the two of us, I have demonstrated that I can adherence to the Three Laws. Of the two of us, I'm the one who's demonstrated my ability to throw away my ENTIRE worldview, parts of my direct family, and the promise of an afterlife because of a lack of support for my old beliefs.

:rolleyes:

If you don't want to ever admit fallability, that's your prerogative, but those who never admit wrongness can never learn rightness.

Sing it with me now. IIIIrooonyyyy.

And people call ME arrogant. I mean, I'm not denying that I sometimes am, but seriously... Sheesh.

As I recall, you are the one who jumped on me and made a rather extensive post insulting me. Whereas...I merely pointed out flaws in your argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please try to remain civil.

- Henny, Philosophy, Politics and Science moderator

It's alright, Henny. I'm just blocking him; it's going to save the thread from a headbutting match, and I don't feel like wasting my time responding to such vapid mockery anyway.

So, how are YOU doin'?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BadKarma, you still aren't understanding what it is I am trying to show you, and I am finished with giving analogies. You're taking my words too literally, by language I do not mean 'words'. I am also not suggesting or arguing for a particular notion as stupid as 'logic vs. religion' either, as such a thing would be ridiculous and unreasonable.

Rather, it is the notion that you are running under, affecting how you are using logic, not logic itself, which is problematic here. And because of this notion, you're going to get a particular kind of result, one that you are likely to accept because it inclines to the notion that beget it. Yet, said result, simply because it is a result, does not necessarily mean it is an accurate one, or 'the' accurate one.

I've tried to show what it is I mean the best way I can for now. It's up to you to re-read and consider carefully what I have said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BadKarma, you still aren't understanding what it is I am trying to show you, and I am finished with giving analogies. You're taking my words too literally, by language I do not mean 'words'. I am also not suggesting or arguing for a particular notion as stupid as 'logic vs. religion' either, as such a thing would be ridiculous and unreasonable.

Rather, it is the notion that you are running under, affecting how you are using logic, not logic itself, which is problematic here. And because of this notion, you're going to get a particular kind of result, one that you are likely to accept because it inclines to the notion that beget it. Yet, said result, simply because it is a result, does not necessarily mean it is an accurate one, or 'the' accurate one.

I've tried to show what it is I mean the best way I can for now. It's up to you to re-read and consider carefully what I have said.

I don't understand, Hap, because you're not clearly defining it. I'd like to understand, but you're using, shall we say, very figurative speech, and figurative speech doesn't easily communicate solid ideas.

I'd like to understand you, and I hope you'd more properly phrase your posts to make your point. Let us employ a series of questions, because I'd like to figure out what you think I'm doing:

1. What is this "notion" I'm running under?

2. How does one use proper logic in improper/problematic ways? To do so is fallacy, and I make desperate attempts to not engage in fallacy.

3. Is it really my problem if people aren't using words properly? I can't figure out their inflection over the internet, after all, and I can't easily ask someone for clarification, especially when they start using "spiritual terms" that apparently have completely different meanings for every individual.

4. What result am I going to get?

5. Is there a better result that can be found than one from logic and deduction?

The notion I personally think I'm running with is that nothing should be treated as true until proven as such, that logical proofs are invalid if they are found to be fallacious, and that deduction and scrutiny is better at divining truth than induction and credulity.

The position I currently take is that of a skeptic material naturalist, as the material and the natural can both be verified beyond a shadow of a doubt and skepticism avoids any pitfalls of induction or assumption.

The logic I think I'm using is anything which can be directly tied to the Three Laws and anything that does not violate known fallacies.

The words I'm reading are being interpreted as if their most standard definitions were used, because people aren't qualifying exactly what they mean when writing stuff. Again, not being able to ask for immediate clarification (which, I'd agree, is sorely needed when discussing spirituality/religion) is a limitation of internet conversation, and I have no other recourse but to assume that the other typist is using their language properly.

The result I've been getting so far, regarding conversation in this thread in general, is people telling me I'm looking at this all the wrong way without giving me any examples of a separate method or clearly demonstrating that one should even posit a better method.

The result I've been getting so far, regarding this topic in general, is hundreds of hours of discussions involving circular logic, arguments from ignorance/popularity/authority/incredulity, faith pleas, the anthropic principle, and in many cases (not here, but it's quite prevalent elsewhere) a flagrant misunderstanding of the known workings of the universe.

What I'm looking for, if it can be found, is either a logical proof for any particular type of deity that is entirely sound and cannot be equivocated with any random variable, or concrete, testable, verifiable evidence of such a deity's existence.

Do you think I'm not doing any of this? Or that I could somehow do something better? If so, why? And how do you think it could be better? And can you give a reason why your version of truth-seeking is as demonstrable as the scientific method and skepticism?

This is not something you personally have to answer. Anyone can answer this, and I'd genuinely like to hear your opinions. Let it be known that I will do my best to scrutinize these opinions and see if they're actually valid, but if they are, I'm prepared to adopt a different worldview. I'd personally think it would behoove anyone who CAN'T come up with a better version of truth-seeking to utilize mine instead (it's kinda pretty good, y'know), but what you do with your own lives is only of ephemeral concern to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Asterion Orestes

The Karma-Chakra rolled:

A being that knows everything knows every choice that will be made. We can't choose something else because it already knows our choices.

Foreknowledge still isn't causation.

Despite my verbose rants, I think I've maintained a great degree of civility here.

I think we'd all agree FWIW.

The best behavior we've come up with is secular humanism.

This may need clarification.

You are presented with two options: A and B.

Reminds me of someone's video post elsewhere here: Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death." :)

Beginning to wonder if some other ideas might be relevant. Imagine, for instance, that I had access to an artifact of amazing (presumably alien) technology which allowed me to observe Sally's behavior, say, six months in the future. I report to BadKarma that I saw her driving a car of a certain make & color & describe the cats she's riding with. BadKarma later goes to Seattle on the date in question & verifies my account. Bearing in mind that this" time telescope" does not make me a deity, would such events prove anything about free will?

The Many-Worlds hypothesis might complicate things. In theory every single choice we make might lead to a different universe. Hypothetical omniscience conceivably would involve knowledge of every conceivable result--& perhaps they're all "true." Yikes--I just opened up a cosmic can o'worms. This is getting scary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beginning to wonder if some other ideas might be relevant. Imagine, for instance, that I had access to an artifact of amazing (presumably alien) technology which allowed me to observe Sally's behavior, say, six months in the future. I report to BadKarma that I saw her driving a car of a certain make & color & describe the cats she's riding with. BadKarma later goes to Seattle on the date in question & verifies my account. Bearing in mind that this" time telescope" does not make me a deity, would such events prove anything about free will?

It would prove that free will doesn't exist. That, or the "time telescope" doesn't work and just happened to guess right.

The Many-Worlds hypothesis might complicate things. In theory every single choice we make might lead to a different universe. Hypothetical omniscience conceivably would involve knowledge of every conceivable result--& perhaps they're all "true." Yikes--I just opened up a cosmic can o'worms. This is getting scary.

Well, basically, if many-worlds hypothesis is correct, free will doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...