a new argument against determinism

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 45
#31
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
I believe that not only are science and religion on the same coin, I believe true science and true religion are the same side of a coin, and, therefore, can use either forum. 
Obviously, you do not.  That's okay.  I, unlike some, do not believe anyone should be banned from either forum for their thinking.
I am specifically pointing out that an argument that is underpinned by a whole lot of meaningless religious mumbo jumbo, rather than a logical or empirical argument is best suited to the religion forum; where the topic is generally all in some way related to meaningless religious mumbo jumbo.

There is no way to credible assess you’re odd assertions based on scripture, that are neither testable nor founded on any sort of observational evidence.


Finally; I am not entirely sure what planet you are on where you feel that I support banning people for posting in the wrong forum, that’s as bizarrely ridiculously as it is comprehensively false. I don’t have enough characters here to lol at that sufficiently.

It’s just an issue of relevance; if you wish to try and justify an argument with religious drivel, it’s probably best to put it in the religion forum where those interested and capable in aforementioned drivel may assess it appropriately.

#32
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@949havoc
No, determinism is false because the universe is not the creator of man. God is, and he granted us free agency, which is a law unto itself by which the universe does not operate nor understand.
To admit that we operate by determinism is defeatist and self-limiting. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. What, can't handle having the freedom your own agency? Too bad.
  1. You’re acting as if humans are seperate from the cosmos. Sentience is the universe being self-aware. We are literally made from dying stars. 
  2. Humans learn and retain knowledge. This is one of the prerequisites to assign accountability/agency. To admit we operate by determinism doesn’t change that.


Topic's author
#33
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Reece101
You’re acting as if humans are seperate from the cosmos
Our physical bodies are nade ofd star stuff, yes, but we're more than physical bodies. The spirit is of divine origin, and that is our destiny, as well.

To admit we operate by determinism doesn’t change that.
Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. 
#34
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@949havoc
Our physical bodies are made of star stuff, yes, but we're more than physical bodies. The spirit is of divine origin, and that is our destiny, as well.
You call it the spirit, I call it the mind which is a product of reality. 

Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. 
Sounds like those “some philosophers” didn’t really think it through. “Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply…”. 
Is there a follow up properly explaining their in-depth thoughts?
Topic's author
#35
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
You call it the spirit, I call it the mind which is a product of reality. 
Yes, real divinity

Is there a follow up properly explaining their in-depth thoughts?
There's a wide world of research available out there. Go find it.
#36
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@949havoc
Yes, real divinity
Yes, for you it comes down to faith, not logic. 

There's a wide world of research available out there. Go find it.
You copy and pasted from wikipedia. Surely you could have scrolled down and copy and pasted some more.
Topic's author
#37
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Reece101
Yes, for you it comes down to faith, not logic.
Is truth logic? Yes. You misunderstand my definition of faith, which amounts to much more than mere belief. The latter may be your definition, but not mine.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11: 1

"Now as I said concerning faith - faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore, if ye have faith, ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Alma 32: 21

Faith must lead to truth, or it is not faith, but mere belief. There's a difference, and it is palpable if applied correctly. It is most akin to the sense of touch, but it is internal, as if the spirit within us, recognizing truth when it is heard, because it has heard it before from God, himself, meeting the conditions set forth in the following verses, lets us know by touching our inter-physical body self. Tat's the best way I can explain it, as I have had this experience on many occasions.

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. Moroni 10: 4, 5

You copy and pasted from wikipedia. 
Where in this string have I c/p from Wiki? Don'r assume because most use Wiki exclusively that I limit myself to Wiki. I do use it on rare occasion, but not as a rule. It says of itself that it is not reliable. 
#38
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
Is truth logic? Yes.
Logic is a very close synonym of reason, not truth. 




Whilst truth is a conclusion in accordance with fact(s) and reality.




You aren’t interested in showing either rationale nor truth. 

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11: 1
the substance of hoping for evidence? Really? Hoping for evidence isn’t that reliable especially when it comes to faith. You know, bias and all that. 

"Now as I said concerning faith - faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore, if ye have faith, ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Alma 32: 21
Truth isn’t perfect knowledge neither. But at least there’s a basis of facts to go off. 

Faith must lead to truth, or it is not faith, but mere belief. There's a difference, and it is palpable if applied correctly. It is most akin to the sense of touch, but it is internal, as if the spirit within us, recognizing truth when it is heard, because it has heard it before from God, himself, meeting the conditions set forth in the following verses, lets us know by touching our inter-physical body self. Tat's the best way I can explain it, as I have had this experience on many occasions.
It’s palpable due to overwhelming bias. These feelings you have are shared with many religious people all over the world that believe in many different gods/doctrines. 

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. Moroni 10: 4, 5
This type of language isn’t unique. Many religions use this language.

Where in this string have I c/p from Wiki? Don'r assume because most use Wiki exclusively that I limit myself to Wiki. I do use it on rare occasion, but not as a rule. It says of itself that it is not reliable. 
“Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.” This was on wikipedia a while back. Looks like the page has been updated since then. Where did you get it from? You posted it like it was from an authoritative source. 
#39
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@949havoc
Okay I see what you are getting at, you are indeed a unique theist in your belief that there is an infinite chain of God's. Though your explanation of your view of the "junkyard" is quite interesting, it is not the central to this discussion, I simply asked "do you believe that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument is true?". From my understanding your answer is a partial "yes". You believe that everything in the universe was created ex materia by God and that God moved pre-existing matter. From this, what do you think of the following syllogism. 

p1. If a thing is in the universe, it was caused.(was rearranged from a state of chaos to order by God). 
p2. The entirety of a human being is in the universe. 
c1. The entirety of a human being was caused. 
Ergo. The human will was caused meaning that it is not "free". Something which is caused by a separate entity was obviously not caused by the agent in question. 

Topic's author
#40
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Bones
Interesting syllogism, but I do not agree with its conclusion.
The reason is because you are combining the existence of a thing, in this case, free will, with its use, which is something altogether different than its existence.
Having agency [free will] is useless if it is not used.
Think of agency as having the right of freedom of speech. I can say whatever I choose to say, ignoring consequences. But, what if I choose to not speak? If I choose not to speak, then I am not exercising that right, but it remains a choice I have to do otherwise. Similarly, if I ignore my agency, and do nothing, what can I accomplish? Nothing. Agency,  itself, does not compel its use. There's the hiccup in your syllogism. The fact is, I can determine to be a bump on a log, driven by the river, making no choice for myself but yielding to the current. This does not prove I have no agency; just that I choose to disengage from it, which is still a personal choice.

I know, you can argue that it is not really my choice; that to choose to do nothing was determined; that the universe decided I'm a bump on a log. 

64 days later

#41
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@949havoc
Actually, I believe, we do choose to be born as physical beings. Our existence does not begin at birth, nor even at conception, but existed previously as immortal, spirit children of God, our Father, which, of course, means we also have a Mother in Heaven, a perfect, resurrected female being as is God a male. Gender has purpose, and it is not an alphabet soup.
If by "we" you mean the humans walking on earth and discussing on this site, then you are wrong. Your thoughts exist within your physical brain, which didn't exist before your biological body. Whatever "spirits" hypothetically exists aren't us humans anyway. 

9 days later

#42
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,166
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@949havoc
"My subject regards human nature, and that it is, curiously, and demonstrably by experimentation, the habit of people of just about any culture who are without a map, or recognizable landmarks, when attempting to walk a straight line for a considerable distance, actually tend to walk in circles. https://outdoormeta.com/avoid-going-circles-lost-in-wild/

In fact, it seems such circles can have a limited size as small as a 20-meter circumference. Why?" 


People will walk in circles when no reference point is available for two reasons 1) the left right dominance and 2) peoples legs are not of equal length. These two things combined will cause you to walk in circles. Has nothing to do with free will or determinism. 


#43
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@sadolite
Love the argument.

But the obvious response is:

That, left/right dominance and unequal legs determine that without reference points one would tend to walk in circles.

Which came first, the physiological anomalies or the stroll?


So if one is aware of ones natural tendencies, one therefore might use freewill and compensate.

But then one might overcompensate and walk in opposite circles.

Nonetheless one might therefore suggest that awareness provoked a determinism to compensate/overcompensate.


And notwithstanding that the initial stroll, circular or otherwise, would have been a determined event.
#44
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,166
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
You are arguing for the sake of argument. You have been informed as to my people will walk in circles when there is no reference point. I really don't give a shit what people  are thinking while they walk in circles. You wanna psycho analyze it, that's fine, but it wont make you walk in a strait line.
#45
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@sadolite
True True True.


But as an argument against determinism, it was easily found to be lacking.

And if such wasn't the case, I wouldn't have argued for the sake of it.