free will

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 712
#421
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Is it accepting that something is true or exists? If no, it's not a belief.
"I believe it is true that there are no god(s)" then qualifies as a belief. It is after all the acceptance that something is true.

#422
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I already have. The word "pasta" derives its meaning from its composition of physical properties. The word "pasta", therefore, cannot also refer to a non-physical object as it would be a violation of the law of identity, one of the three fundamental laws of logic.
#423
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
"I believe it is true that there are no god(s)" then qualifies as a belief. It is after all the acceptance that something is true."

Correct.

If someone claims "God exists" and you disbelieve them, you are mentally rejecting that to be untrue. Note that this, by itself, is not accepting that "God does not exist" is true. The "God does not exist is true" part is *logically entailed* by their disbelief in the "God exists" claim. 
 


#424
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I already have. The word "pasta" derives its meaning from its composition of physical properties. The word "pasta", therefore, cannot also refer to a non-physical object as it would be a violation of the of indentity, one of the three fundamental laws of logic.
If nonphysical pasta exists then it clearly also refers to pasta that is non physical. Unless you can disprove the existence of non physical pasta it is not, by your presented metric, more rational to disbelieve than to believe.

Also while we are on the subject do you believe that it is true that there is no non physical pasta or do you disbelieve in non physical pasta? Two different things apparently.

#425
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I feel I've made my position quite clear on this and don't feel the need to continue discussing the silly non-physical pasta monster concept that you've repeatedly avoided defining despite my requests.

Yes, due to non-physical pasta violating the law of identity, I believe it does not exist. I explained the differences between belief and disbelief in one of my posts above.

#426
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
"I believe it is true that there are no god(s)" then qualifies as a belief. It is after all the acceptance that something is true."

Correct.
Excellent since we agree that beliefs do not require a burden of proof then this belief does not require any burden of proof. Or at least no more of aburden if proof than the statement "I believe it is true that some god(s) exist" would.
If someone claims "God exists" and you disbelieve them, you are mentally rejecting that to be untrue. Note that this, by itself, is not accepting that "God does not exist" is true. The "God does not exist is true" part is *logically entailed* by their disbelief in the "God exists" claim. 
That is irrelevant. Either beliefs require a burden of proof or they do not. If this is not a universally applicable standard please explain why believing something todoes not exist should be subjected to a different standard and why you continue to tefuse to conform to this different standard in regards to your apastaism.
#427
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You are conflating the psychological brainstates of belief and disbelief with believing or disbeliving claims again. Please don't become Mopac.
#428
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I defined the pasta monster concept as well as some theists define their god concepts. A definition being vague dies not affectcits voracity remember? 

If you disbelieve in nonphysical pasta just because there happens to be apparently physical pasta then why not disbelieve equally in consciousness because there is apparently physical consciousness? How does one violate the laws of identity and the other does not?

I propose you are applying a double standard between your beliefs and the beliefs of others.
Topic's author
#429
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
The distinction is meaningless. I disbelieve both.
What is it with binary thinking?  Perhaps I'm so old I still think in analogue shades of gray!

I don't believe in that BB theory in it's present form is the complete answer and solution to 'where do we come from?', but I do believe it is a lot closer to the truth than Moses' six-day theory.

I believe the final answer will be a refinement of the BB. If you think in black and white then I too 'disbelieve' the BB because its not a perfect theory yet, but my disbelief towards the BB is not the same kind of disbelief I have towards Genesis.

What you wrote implies you have exactly the same attitude towards Genesis and the BB.  I'll concede they are both wrong, but the important thing is they are wrong in different ways. 

#430
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
A definition being vague does not affect its veracity but the problem is that you haven't provided a defintion at all, not even a vague one.

Consciousness does not derive its meaning from a composition of physical properties like pasta does. 

#431
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
In what way is believing or disbeliving claims not simply a brainstate? Please explain the difference beyween the brainstate of belief/disbelief and the belief/disbelief itself?
#432
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
At the minimum it is a nonphysical pasta monster responsible for the existence of the universe. I thought I had made that clear but if not there it is.
#433
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Consciousness does not derive its meaning from a composition of physical properties like pasta does. 
Can you prove that consciousness does not derive its meaning from a composition of physical properties like pasta does?

Also do you believe consciousness does not derive its meaning from a composition of physical properties like pasta does or do you disbelieve that consciousness does derive its meaning from a composition of physical properties like pasta doesn't.?

#434
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
I don't believe in that BB theory in it's present form is the complete answer and solution to 'where do we come from?', but I do believe it is a lot closer to the truth than Moses' six-day theory.

I believe the final answer will be a refinement of the BB. If you think in black and white then I too 'disbelieve' the BB because its not a perfect theory yet, but my disbelief towards the BB is not the same kind of disbelief I have towards Genesis.

What you wrote implies you have exactly the same attitude towards Genesis and the BB.  I'll concede they are both wrong, but the important thing is they are wrong in different ways.  
Well stated

#435
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Fallaneze
You are conflating the psychological brainstates of belief and disbelief with believing or disbeliving claims again. Please don't become Mopac.
I do no such thing.

#436
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
”
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)."


#437
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I extend the same arguments I made earlier to your newly provided defintion.
#438
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
“belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing
Ok so what specifically is the difference between the two. If a belief is discernable different from the attitude or psychological state of believing?

#439
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, "consciousness" is defined as the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. There is no physical component indicated.

"Pasta" is defined as "a dish originally from Italy consisting of dough made from durum wheat and water, extruded or stamped into various shapes and typically cooked in boiling water." There are physical components indicated by its definition.







#440
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
You have failed to eliminate the possibility of non physical pasta merelyvasserted your disbelief/belief to the contrary.

#441
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The differences lie in what you're referring to. One means to accept a given state of affairs as true and the other doesn't take into account any given state of affairs aside from the belief/,no belief brainstate.
#442
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
What are we awake and aware of if not our physical surroundings? Unless you can demonstrate the existence of nonphysical surroundings you are in the same position as someone who proposes nonphysical pasta.

Your standard for what is reasonable should be applied equally to all claims.
#443
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I haven't heard a refutation of my argument that it violates the law of identity but you are free to give your opinion on the matter.

#444
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Consciousness =/= surroundings
#445
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
One means to accept a given state of affairs as true and the other doesn't take into account any given state of affairs aside from the belief/,no belief brainstate.
Please explain the discernable difference between acceptance and the brainstate of acceptance. Please explain why the dustinction requires a burden of proof from a disbelieve but not from a believer.

#446
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
If all is determined by physics and chemistry then as soon as you explain how physics and chemistry can rationally accept beliefs I'll concede the point.
Please explain how you can make decisions WITHOUT physics OR chemistry.
#447
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Things are getting heavily conflated.. 


Accepting *that some state of affairs is true.*

Vs.

Brainstate of acceptance. 

One refers to your psychology and the other refers to the propositional content of the belief as the Stanford source pointed out.

I've said many times that I do not care about people's psychology of belief/disbelief. I care about the claims that they accept to be true and the claims they reject to be untrue. 


#448
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't see how doing that would be relevant in avoiding the implication I talked about.
#449
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I haven't heard a refutation of my argument that it violates the law of identity but you are free to give your opinion on the matter.
It only violates the law of identity if you prescriptively define pasta as physical. If you are open to a broader definition of pasta then no violation occurs. If you are not open then I must ask why you expect me to be more open in my definition of conciousness which so far as I can tell is just a brainstate.

Since brainstate are physical a nonphysical consciousness violates the law of identity.


So which is it. If you expect me to produce evidence for nonphysical pasta I expect you to provide evidence of a nonphysical consciousness. If you expect to dismiss nonphysical pasta as logically inconsistent just because you have never seen any then I expect to dismiss nonphysical consciousness on the same grounds.

#450
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
I haven't heard a refutation of my argument that it violates the law of identity but you are free to give your opinion on the matter.
You just redefine the item with "special" properties.  Like when someone says "god is love".

Does this mean that god is a human emotion that facilitates the propagation of the species?

Does love have any physical properties?

Is love omnipotent and omniscient?

No, of course not.  In every example "god" is a "special case".

The same is true for the Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.