free will

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 712
#361
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
So was that your definition of the flying spaghetti monster?

You're conflating the psychological brainstate of believing or disbelieving something with believing or disbelieving a claim. I don't care about psychological brainstates. I only care when people believe or disbelieve a claim. 

Again, no, I'm not talking about knowledge, just belief or disbelief.


     

Topic's author
#362
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The FSM is a 'fictional character' and as such tricky to deal with.

Consider 'Did sherlock homes smoke a pipe?'.

Clearly yes - there are many mentions of Holmes pipe moking in the stories.
Clearly no, because sherlock holmes never actually existed and non existent things can't smoke pipes!

So does FSM refer to a fictional character or to the subect of that fiction? 


#363
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Interesting point. It all depends on the basis of comparison. If your basis of comparison is reality, then no. If your basis of comparison is a fictional world, then yes. 

#364
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
So was that your definition of the flying spaghetti monster?
Oh I'm not married to any particular definition. Just some flying spaghetti monster.
I only care when people believe or disbelieve a claim. 

Again, no, I'm not talking about knowledge, just belief or disbelief.
If belief does not require a burden of proof but only a claim then why would disbelief require one. I am asking for a logical reason that you have a separate standard for belief against something than for it unless your goal is to shift the burden of proof to the disbeliever.
#365
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
The FSM is a 'fictional character' and as such tricky to deal with.
Like most god concepts he would appear to be kieth but it is exceedingly difficult to prove conclusively that a spaghetti monster of the gaps doesn't exist. At a ceetain point you either remain skeptical of propositions that have no sufficient evidence or you accept one or more. My only real question is once you have accepted one why not accept all?

Topic's author
#366
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
One approach - I don't think it's appeared on DA yet - is to take fictional characters (such as the FSM and Holmes) as objects with their own sort  of quasi existence.   God is certainly a character in the bible- is he anything more?

But we are moving away from discussing free will.

#367
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Then I await your definition.

You are getting caught up in the psychological brainstate of belief/disbelief when I just explained I don't care about that.

#368
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The focus isn't to "prove conclusively" anything. The focus is whether belief or disbelief in God is more rational.
#369
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
I agree with your first sentence but disagree with your second sentence. If you claim X does not exist, all you have to do is show evidence that X does not exist. 
Yes, and it is much more difficult to show evidence that something that truly does not exist does not than to show that something that truly exists does. This is especially true with theistic claims, many of which are mutually exclusive.Therefore the burden of proof is not equal.

In addition, when you consider all possible claims, most are false. Another reason for disbelief to be the default position.
#370
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
The level of difficulty is claim-specific. It's not inherently more difficult to provide information that something does not exist. The ratio of true to false claims is irrelevant since (1) claims are case-specific and (2) claims aren't randomly selected.
#371
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
Even when you limit it to only theistic claims that are actually asserted, there are far more false claims than true ones. Therefore when presented with a novel theistic claim, in the absence of evidence, disbelief is the reasonable default position. Especially when one considers the fantastical nature of many such claims. As a general rule, the more fantastic the claim, the more one ought to disbelieve it until provided evidence.

How can you say that it is not inherently more difficult to provide evidence of non-existence? If I claim that there is a ten-foot-tall gold statue of Zeus lying at the bottom of the sea, and there really is one, then all I have to do to conclusively demonstrate its existence is to show it to you. You might even accept a written record of a ship that sank with such a statue on board as sufficient evidence. But if I claim there is no such statue, and there really is not one, how do I conclusively demonstrate that?  A lack of any record of such a statue is insufficient. Records can be lost. I need to show that, out of every square meter of the sea floor, none has such a statue. It should be obvious which is more difficult.


#372
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Then I await your definition.
I have given as good a definition as many theists have given me to disprove. You do try to justify your arguments logically (though we disagree on some axioms) but that doesn't change the fact that you have only very vaguely described your god concept very vaguely yourself with words like "prime" and "conscious".
The focus isn't to "prove conclusively" anything. The focus is whether belief or disbelief in God is more rational.
Actually the focus of thus thread is supposed to be freewill but if we examine the core question
whether belief or disbelief in God is more rational.
We see you are asking about belief not knowledge. It doesn't matter which belief is more rational only if any claims are. Neither belief nor disbelief require a burden of proof. Only claims do.
#373
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
@keithprosser
@Stronn
@Fallaneze
As God is The Ultimate Reality, the only way to say God doesn't exist is to adopt the position of nihilism.

If you could tell the difference between the created and the uncreated, you would understand that there is a certain level of absurdity involved in communicating God. We are, after all, created beings in the world of creation. Creation is our medium.

Archimandrite Sophrony was highlighting a great truth when he wrote "Throughout the ages the doctors of the Church sought ways and means whereby to communicate to the world their knowledge concerning Divine Being. In their attempts they constantly found themselves torn between unwillingness to abandon their imageless contemplation of the essentially one and only mystery, and the love which impelled them to communicate the mystery to their brethren."

With out the Holy Spirit, you will see images, but you won't really see what they are communicating. Or to use another example, it is like staring at the finger of someone who is pointing you to look at something.

The Ultimate Reality is God. The God we worship and acknowledge is The Truth. 


That being understood, the flimsiness of all arguments against God is made manifest, and these spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, and what have you are also exposed for what they are. They are the products of a reasoning mind that is superstitious concerning God. And so, the very superstition that is mocked in these satirical mockings of God is revealed to be the very superstition the mockers themselves have concerning God.





And this is a topic about free will, not the existence of God. It should be clear that whether or not the cogency of evidence compels one into acceptance of the truth of free will, it cannot be said that there is no evidence. After all, if one says there is no evidence, they are in denial of the fact that they had to ignore their perception of making the choice to make such an obviously false assertion.





Topic's author
#374
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
@Stronn
@Fallaneze
@Mopac
This debate is over here.

#375
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Apologies kieth
#376
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
I don't think the number of false claims on a particular subject is indicative of whether a particular claim on that subject is true or false. That's a variation of the genetic fallacy.

What makes a claim "fantastical"?

You're conflating "proof" with "evidence." Again, the word "evidence" just means information indicating whether something is true. 

What's interesting is that the example of the 10ft tall gold statue of Zeus is more likely false than true, yet your view is that this negative claim should be harder to justify than the positive claim.




#377
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
My definition of God is a prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe. If that's true, it's enough to demonstrate that atheism is false. Whether a claim is "vague" is largely subjective and has nothing to do with its veracity. 

Topic's author
#378
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
My definition of God is a prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe
I think the important word is 'conscious'.  Many atheists believe in a 'prime, eternal creator' of the universe called 'the big bang', but the BB is generally considered mindless and unconscious and hence it is not a 'god'.


I think there is no conscious entity that created the universe for his inscrutable purposes who listens to and answers
 prayers and sends the dead to either heaven or hell.

I do believe there was a big bang, and we got from there to here - not by conscious planning and intelligent interventions by a god but - by the playing out of cause and effect ever since.


#379
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
My definition of God is a prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe. If that's true, it's enough to demonstrate that atheism is false. Whether a claim is "vague" is largely subjective and has nothing to do with its veracity.

Whether a claimof a pasta monster is "vague" is largely subjective and has nothing to do with its veracity.

#380
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
There is no reason to think the universe was created or that the big bang was necessarily the first event (the first we have evidence for yes. The first period, who knows)


Topic's author
#381
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I believe the 'unconscious BB' model of creation is essentially correct and the conscious creator model is essentially incorrect..

#382
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
However they arose,  my preferences are my preferences, not anyone else's. 
The same can be said for a spider.

It seems that some people insist that free will has to be independent of any influence whatsoever (ie taking an extreme interpretation of 'free') because it makes it easy to dismiss free will on semantic grounds.
That's a slight overstatement.  Most people agree that freewill choices have some percentage of deterministic influences, even up to 80 or 90%, but insist that there is some "wiggle room" that is "self-caused" and that is the "free" part.

It's patently obvious we don't make choices free of influences.  the most ardent supporter of free will does not deny our choices are influencedy by external factors and internal states such as preferences.  Indeed a form of 'free will' independent of desires would be wotrh having,or wanting.  That would indded be indistinguishable from 'random behaviour'.
I agree.

But there are entities in the world - such as leaves blowing in the wind - that do not have freewill in any meaningful,sense and entities that do have free will such as DA posters.  
But the real question is, whether or not you believe a spider can make one of these freewill choices?
#383
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I find it amazing that you say there is no evidence for free will when the fact that you are choosing to post on this forum is clearly evidence, whether or not it constitutes proof to you.I think you really have to make an active effort to ignore reality to maintain that there is no evidence.
My actions are caused by previous events, with some possibly uncaused random noise injected into the mix.

Do your actions have no cause?  What exactly is your "will" "free" from?
#384
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
I believe the 'unconscious BB' model of creation is essentially correct and the conscious creator model is essentially incorrect.. 
I reject both hypotheses based on their untestable nature.

#385
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
So was that your definition of the flying spaghetti monster?You're conflating the psychological brainstate of believing or disbelieving something with believing or disbelieving a claim. I don't care about psychological brainstates. I only care when people believe or disbelieve a claim. Again, no, I'm not talking about knowledge, just belief or disbelief.
What about the ancient invisible unicorns that make babies cry?

Do you disbelieve in them or do you non-believe in them or do you have some sort of conclusive evidence that they don't exist?
#386
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Apologies again kieth. The conversation seems to have picked up a momentum that is not easily stemmied. It is almost as if we have no choice.
#387
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
The level of difficulty is claim-specific. It's not inherently more difficult to provide information that something does not exist. The ratio of true to false claims is irrelevant since (1) claims are case-specific and (2) claims aren't randomly selected.
Maybe we should focus on the distinction between the two options.

What are the distinctly different practical implications between (A) an intelligent creator and (B) a mindless creator and (C) no creator at all?
#388
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
As this is an absurd argument to begin with, I must defer to a previous point that I made..

That perhaps more useful than discussing the veracity of free will would be to discuss the effects and utilization of the belief itself.

The approach Jacques Vallée takes to UFOs and apply it to free will instead.
#389
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I have given as good a definition as many theists have given me to disprove. You do try to justify your arguments logically (though we disagree on some axioms) but that doesn't change the fact that you have only very vaguely described your god concept very vaguely yourself with words like "prime" and "conscious".
The Flying-Spaghetti-Monster defies description.
#390
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
The Flying-Spaghetti-Monster defies description.
Particularly if we make indescribable part of its prescriptive definition.