Atheists are hypocrites

Author: Ehyeh

Posts

Total: 465
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
The best argument for God is the argument from intelligent processes (my own argument). NOT, the argument from intelligent design....design and processes invoke different things, the term "design"  forces skeptics to focus on the imperfection of such a "design" whereas if you get people to look at how obvious it is that the processes of the universe correlate with intelligent productions then it is very easy to correlate those processes with thought and intelligence by what they produce as a whole. We're not looking for perfection so no need to invoke design but function. The universe is nothing short of a succession of processes that create desired outcomes, that is, outcomes that benefit and sustain that which produces effects as if they knew what needed to be achieved hence....intelligence. This goes without saying that an intelligent agency (God) is a perfect match for what we observe in the universe. And to believe that inanimate forces could somehow generate such processes as if they had minds is really quite absurd.

I don't think there is a good argument against God, unless of course one argues from just one source of religious dogma, then their rebuttals are limited to just one source of information. For example the argument from the problem of suffering is easily dealt with by Karma yet most people won't admit it because one, either they haven't thoroughly thought it through or they think it should be taught by the Bible and if it hasn't then it doesn't qualify lol. The problem of evil is also dealt with when a person fully understands duality and free will in such an environment as the one we are experiencing. The argument from why there are many paths of religious thought and observation is easily dealt with when one understands the full scope of creation and that many, many countless societies exist outside the physical world that a soul can experience and sojourn...which is also the beauty and variety of creation as a whole. I can go on an on but honestly, there is no decent argument that can support that God does not exist. That's my opinion of course, which is substantiated by my own arguments if they are taken as they logically follow in any discussion.

May i request your opinions on this idea? i seen it just now in another forum section, was wondering what critiques you all may have of it. The credits go to eternalview or something like that.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I don't credit god for anything. I mostly credit the human inability to face our own mortality for what theists believe about him
I find this very reductionist to be honest. Most theists are not just theists out of fear, but meaning. It should be noted that most philosophers are actually moral realists. Not because moral realism is anymore likely than moral relativism but simply because its important to believe our actions and moral beliefs actually matter (beyond it simply being like a game of football). Many writers and philosophers such as Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy have talked about the necessary lack of true meaning and nihilism that atheism will bring.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Ehyeh
I’m not quite sure what the specific argument is.

The first seem to be “intelligent processes exist.” I’ve seen more of than these than I would care to list; but they all boil down to describing something with ambiguous or subjective language, and then making an argument from incredulity saying that it can’t be random.

To make an argument for intelligence in this wayyou have to first come up with a reasonable criteria of what an “intelligent” process is, and what the properties of it are that preclude such a process occurring in nature and why.

For an intelligent object - like a house, that’s relatively easy; but for processes and other stuff - it’s near impossible.

This argument tends to fall apart when you try, because either a.) you chose your terms so loosely that you are unable to explain why such a process couldn’t happen naturally, or b.) you chose your terms so strictly that all natural processes responsible for life can be deemed as unintelligent: there’s not really any middle ground.


The second problem, is not actually a real problem, but an issue of slippery theists:

There are many arguments against God, the problem of evil, the a metaphysical issue of a disembodied will seeming to make no sense, to the logical contradictions of various religions, when religions or the religious create specific assign specific properties of “God”, that god typically ends up being logically incoherent. Generally speaking, atheism has a good handle on logically refuting all specific Gods, and has a pretty decent explanation of why gods were invented in the first place, and why were even having this conversation. Realizing that the jig is up, theists typically respond by watering down their claims about what God is to the point where it can’t rationally be defined as God; but then use that generic definition to magic their God into existence - see Kalam.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
The best argument for God is the argument from intelligent processes (my own argument).
nope, you forgot to rigorously define "intelligence"

NOT, the argument from intelligent design....design and processes invoke different things, the term "design"  forces skeptics to focus on the imperfection of such a "design" whereas if you get people to look at how obvious it is that the processes of the universe correlate with intelligent productions then it is very easy to correlate those processes with thought and intelligence by what they produce as a whole.
nope, the law of ridiculously large numbers and survival bias do just fine

We're not looking for perfection so no need to invoke design but function.
if you want to invoke the DEMIURGE, i'm perfectly happy with that

The universe is nothing short of a succession of processes that create desired outcomes, that is, outcomes that benefit and sustain that which produces effects as if they knew what needed to be achieved hence....intelligence.
that's not the definition of "intelligence"

This goes without saying that an intelligent agency (God) is a perfect match for what we observe in the universe.
hold on, why did you say "perfect" ?

and, you forgot to rigorously define "god"

And to believe that inanimate forces could somehow generate such processes as if they had minds is really quite absurd.
shockingly, i agree

I don't think there is a good argument against God, unless of course one argues from just one source of religious dogma, then their rebuttals are limited to just one source of information.
we should really take these god claims one at a time

For example the argument from the problem of suffering is easily dealt with by Karma yet most people won't admit it because one, either they haven't thoroughly thought it through or they think it should be taught by the Bible and if it hasn't then it doesn't qualify lol.
karma does not explain the necessity of suffering

The problem of evil is also dealt with when a person fully understands duality and free will in such an environment as the one we are experiencing.
free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent

The argument from why there are many paths of religious thought and observation is easily dealt with when one understands the full scope of creation and that many, many countless societies exist outside the physical world that a soul can experience and sojourn...which is also the beauty and variety of creation as a whole.
no "one true god" makes way more sense. but how the hell are we supposed to pick the right one ?

I can go on an on but honestly, there is no decent argument that can support that God does not exist.
which god are you talking about again ?

That's my opinion of course,
good to know

which is substantiated by my own arguments if they are taken as they logically follow in any discussion.
i'm glad you've managed to convince yourself, next time perhaps you might try and convince the person you're actually speaking with
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
have talked about the necessary lack of true meaning and nihilism that atheism will bring.
an argument from imaginary consequence
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6

There are many arguments against God, the problem of evil, the a metaphysical issue of a disembodied will seeming to make no sense, to the logical contradictions of various religions, when religions or the religious create specific assign specific properties of “God”, that god typically ends up being logically incoherent. Generally speaking, atheism has a good handle on logically refuting all specific Gods, and has a pretty decent explanation of why gods were invented in the first place, and why were even having this conversation. Realizing that the jig is up, theists typically respond by watering down their claims about what God is to the point where it can’t rationally be defined as God; but then use that generic definition to magic their God into existence - see Kalam
Another reason there's no point to discussing religion with atheist and another reason to despise them.  There's no point in you being here you should really piss off.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5

--> @Ramshutu
There are many arguments against God, the problem of evil, the a metaphysical issue of a disembodied will seeming to make no sense, to the logical contradictions of various religions, when religions or the religious create specific assign specific properties of “God”, that god typically ends up being logically incoherent. Generally speaking, atheism has a good handle on logically refuting all specific Gods, and has a pretty decent explanation of why gods were invented in the first place, and why were even having this conversation. Realizing that the jig is up, theists typically respond by watering down their claims about what God is to the point where it can’t rationally be defined as God; but then use that generic definition to magic their God into existence - see Kalam

Polytheist-Witch:  Another reason there's no point to discussing religion with atheist and another reason to despise them.  There's no point in you being here you should really piss off.
Theists believe in Witches and burn them. Atheists don’t believe burning them will help religion. You appear upset with both groups.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
The best argument for God is the argument from intelligent processes (my own argument).
nope, you forgot to rigorously define "intelligence"

The universe is nothing short of a succession of processes that create desired outcomes, that is, outcomes that benefit and sustain that which produces effects as if they knew what needed to be achieved hence....intelligence.
that's not the definition of "intelligence"

If intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the contention that one can reduce reality to only one of its modes, to know it exhaustively in only one of its forms, is an unintelligent claim.

This goes without saying that an intelligent agency (God) is a perfect match for what we observe in the universe.
hold on, why did you say "perfect" ?

and, you forgot to rigorously define "god"

You spend a lot of time asking people to rigorously define “God”, is it possible perhaps, that you do not understand what the word “transcendence” means? 

The problem of evil is also dealt with when a person fully understands duality and free will in such an environment as the one we are experiencing.
free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent

Oh pulease, how about you  explain this logically incoherent statement. 

The argument from why there are many paths of religious thought and observation is easily dealt with when one understands the full scope of creation and that many, many countless societies exist outside the physical world that a soul can experience and sojourn...which is also the beauty and variety of creation as a whole.
no "one true god" makes way more sense. but how the hell are we supposed to pick the right one ?

How many do you think there are?

I can go on an on but honestly, there is no decent argument that can support that God does not exist.
which god are you talking about again ?

If you want us to choose among your various Gods, we are going to need you to list them or something, describe them, and you know, tell us if you’ve given them names.

which is substantiated by my own arguments if they are taken as they logically follow in any discussion.
i'm glad you've managed to convince yourself, next time perhaps you might try and convince the person you're actually speaking with

I’d like to know more about your “free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent” nonsense.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you even read my full comment? i was simply asking for opinions on what some one else has said. Not that i endorse it or see it as correct.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent

Oh pulease, how about you  explain this logically incoherent statement. 
Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random - - WILL cannot be random - - FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences - - FREE is incompatible with WILL
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
no "one true god" makes way more sense. but how the hell are we supposed to pick the right one ?

How many do you think there are?
thousands
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
I can go on an on but honestly, there is no decent argument that can support that God does not exist.
which god are you talking about again ?

If you want us to choose among your various Gods, we are going to need you to list them or something, describe them, and you know, tell us if you’ve given them names.
i'm not the one making a claim

if you make a claim about a god, it is incumbent upon you, the claimant, to define that god
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
i'm glad you've managed to convince yourself, next time perhaps you might try and convince the person you're actually speaking with

I’d like to know more about your “free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent” nonsense.
i hesitate to make broad statements here, but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement. the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance.

the main problems i see with this proposal are as follows:

1) there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.

2) even if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition non-influential.

3) let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause, or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and randomness is incompatible with choice.

4) but what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.

5) what if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a cute little puff of logic.

i think it's important to fully comprehend this influence-gap. imagine, if you will, that i am constructing a human being. when the recipe calls for me to add "a dash of free-will" i can't just add any old thing, willy nilly; i have to first construct a proper influence-gap to protect my human from the evil determinism. this would be some container that is impervious to all conceivable influence. i probably have a sound-proof, shock-proof, opaque, air-tight, empathy-proof, magic-proof, momentum-proof, time-proof capsule of some sort just laying around my house, i'll just set that to the side for now. ok, adding an empty box to the mix isn't going to do anything of course so we have to put something in it. since whatever is in this i-gap is supposed to advise me on important moral decisions my selection is of critical importance. well, the most intelligent and moral person i know of is my friend george, so since i don't seem to have a better option, i throw george in the i-capsule and seal him in tight. now days, weeks, and months have gone by and i've pretty much forgotten about george until one afternoon i am confronted with an intractable dilemma. i am faced with a decision with staggeringly profound moral implications and i must make a decision immediately. what do i do? well this sounds like a case for the magnificent george! so i locate my everything-proof capsule on which i have scrawled the descriptive term "i-gap" with my handy wax pencil, and i ask my question. i exhaustively explain all of the known factors leading up to and logical implications of this monumental decision to george, my moral, spiritual and financial advisor, and then i wait for an answer, any answer at all. nothing happens. things are getting desperate, so i beg george to give me an answer, to point me in the right direction. nothing happens. i light some candles and wave a magic wand over the i-gap, but still i can't divine any response from george. i realize there is a problem with the i-gap's design. so i quickly scour my garage for spare parts and retrofit a one way intercom system onto the i-gap so i can hear what george has to say. mind you he still can't hear anything or in any way perceive anything that i have to say, thus preserving the integrity of the influence-gap, but now he can speak directly to me, thus becoming an uncaused-cause. of course george has causes, he was born and raised and had both happy and sad experiences, but i'll just ignore all that for now. george is pretty much an uncaused-cause now that he is housed in the exclusive and luxurious, new and improved i-gap. so i ask george again to answer my plea for guidance. nothing happens. every once in a while george does actually say something but it's usually along the lines of "let me out of this f#cking box you god#amned muth#rf#cking muth#rf#cker!" heh, that george is such a kidder!

obviously george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.

the same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.

ipso-facto, no free-will.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
i hesitate to make broad statements here, but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement. the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance. 

the main problems i see with this proposal are as follows:

1) there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.

2) even if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition non-influential.

3) let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause, or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and randomness is incompatible with choice.

4) but what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.

5) what if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a cute little puff of logic.

i think it's important to fully comprehend this influence-gap. imagine, if you will, that i am constructing a human being. when the recipe calls for me to add "a dash of free-will" i can't just add any old thing, willy nilly; i have to first construct a proper influence-gap to protect my human from the evil determinism. this would be some container that is impervious to all conceivable influence. i probably have a sound-proof, shock-proof, opaque, air-tight, empathy-proof, magic-proof, momentum-proof, time-proof capsule of some sort just laying around my house, i'll just set that to the side for now. ok, adding an empty box to the mix isn't going to do anything of course so we have to put something in it. since whatever is in this i-gap is supposed to advise me on important moral decisions my selection is of critical importance. well, the most intelligent and moral person i know of is my friend george, so since i don't seem to have a better option, i throw george in the i-capsule and seal him in tight. now days, weeks, and months have gone by and i've pretty much forgotten about george until one afternoon i am confronted with an intractable dilemma. i am faced with a decision with staggeringly profound moral implications and i must make a decision immediately. what do i do? well this sounds like a case for the magnificent george! so i locate my everything-proof capsule on which i have scrawled the descriptive term "i-gap" with my handy wax pencil, and i ask my question. i exhaustively explain all of the known factors leading up to and logical implications of this monumental decision to george, my moral, spiritual and financial advisor, and then i wait for an answer, any answer at all. nothing happens. things are getting desperate, so i beg george to give me an answer, to point me in the right direction. nothing happens. i light some candles and wave a magic wand over the i-gap, but still i can't divine any response from george. i realize there is a problem with the i-gap's design. so i quickly scour my garage for spare parts and retrofit a one way intercom system onto the i-gap so i can hear what george has to say. mind you he still can't hear anything or in any way perceive anything that i have to say, thus preserving the integrity of the influence-gap, but now he can speak directly to me, thus becoming an uncaused-cause. of course george has causes, he was born and raised and had both happy and sad experiences, but i'll just ignore all that for now. george is pretty much an uncaused-cause now that he is housed in the exclusive and luxurious, new and improved i-gap. so i ask george again to answer my plea for guidance. nothing happens. every once in a while george does actually say something but it's usually along the lines of "let me out of this f#cking box you god#amned muth#rf#cking muth#rf#cker!" heh, that george is such a kidder!

obviously george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.

the same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.

ipso-facto, no free-will. 
The exercise of free will is not hindered by the I-gap.

Please see the definition of free will.

Free will definition: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

It clearly states free will is acting on one's own discretion all things considered.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Free will definition: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

It clearly states free will is acting on one's own discretion all things considered.
at what point is your "discretion" in any way, disconnected from your accumulated experience ?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL

--> @Shila
Free will definition: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

It clearly states free will is acting on one's own discretion all things considered.

at what point is your "discretion" in any way, disconnected from your accumulated experience ?
That too is within the purview of free will to be selective of one’s accumulated experience.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
at what point is your "discretion" in any way, disconnected from your accumulated experience ?
That too is within the purview of free will to be selective of one’s accumulated experience.
do you believe that people with better training make better decisions ?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL

--> @Shila

at what point is your "discretion" in any way, disconnected from your accumulated experience ?
do you believe that people with better training make better decisions ?

That too is within the purview of free will to be selective of one’s accumulated experience.

do you believe that people with better training make better decisions ?
They make better conformist.

Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Training is a weird thing it has to be training in something that's relevant. For instance I had a college professor who was brilliant at understanding social policy and cultural anthropology. But he cut his finger off because while cutting his grass he thought something was caught under the mower and he stuck a finger under there to work it loose without turning the mower off. Obviously some of his training didn't actually make him better at everything it just made him really good at being a professor.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Polytheist-Witch: Training is a weird thing it has to be training in something that's relevant. For instance I had a college professor who was brilliant at understanding social policy and cultural anthropology. But he cut his finger off because while cutting his grass he thought something was caught under the mower and he stuck a finger under there to work it loose without turning the mower off. Obviously some of his training didn't actually make him better at everything it just made him really good at being a professor.
Obviously the Professor who was brilliant at understanding social policy and cultural anthropology knew little or nothing about lawn mowers. So his training and knowledge  could not be applied to operate a lawn mower.
But he exercised his free will and stuck a finger under the mower to work the grass loose without turning the mower. 
Free will definition: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Free will definition: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
please explain how anyone can escape fate
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila

I'm guessing that college professor believed in God ( low reasoning ability) and when his finger was cut off he said,  “My Godmy God, why have you forsaken me?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
Free will definition: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
please explain how anyone can escape fate
There is no escaping fate. It is beyond one’s control or free will.
But one can improve his Karma by meditation and living a pure life.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
--> @Shila

I'm guessing that college professor believed in God ( low reasoning ability) and when his finger was cut off he said,  “My Godmy God, why have you forsaken me?
In your example God abandoned the professor’s  finger. So Psalms 22 wouldn’t apply.

Jesus was losing his life on the cross and lamented,   “My Godmy God, why have you forsaken me?“
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
There is no escaping fate. It is beyond one’s control or free will.
But one can improve his Karma by meditation and living a pure life.
your definition of free-will requires freedom from fate
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL

-->
@Shila
There is no escaping fate. It is beyond one’s control or free will.
But one can improve his Karma by meditation and living a pure life.

your definition of free-will requires freedom from fate
Let us revisit the definition of free will.

Free will definition: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

It reads:
Free will is not constrained by fate or necessity. It is left to one's own discretion.


Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL

i'm glad you've managed to convince yourself, next time perhaps you might try and convince the person you're actually speaking with

I’d like to know more about your “free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent” nonsense.
i hesitate to make broad statements here,
 
I’d have to say, “free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent” was a very broad statement.
 
but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement.
 
Nope, that is not a fair statement, we don’t have to be “free of all previous influences” to have free will. Free will is a matter of whether we have the cognitive ability to conceive of future courses of action, deliberate about various reasons for choosing among them, determine our actions on the basis of such deliberation, and control our actions despite the presence of competing desires. If we can exercise these cognitive abilities to act without our freedom to act being negated or unreasonably compromised by deterministic external pressure, then we possess free will and human beings are morally responsible causal agents.
 
the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance.
 
The attempt to deny the self-evident experiential reality of human consciousness and the associated fact that we are morally responsible causal agents is a very extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Magic fairy dust and the unfounded and completely faith-based belief in determinism doesn’t constitute extraordinary evidence by any stretch of the imagination. 
 
the main problems i see with this proposal are as follows:
 
1) there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.

Or we could recognize that this contrived I-Gap argument presupposes determinism without establishing determinism as a fact, and then recognize that determinism is not a conclusion of science. On the contrary, since Laplace developed the concept in a thought experiment 200 years ago, there has been no actual scientific evidence that reality is deterministic, and a boatload of evidence that it is not. Determinism requires the causal closure of the material world, science has not even come close to establishing the causal closure of the material world and pretty much has abandoned any further attempts to do so.  The 200 year old idea that Newtonian physics translates into a mechanistic and deterministic model of the universe was never demonstrated, and that idea became even more unfounded when Newtoniam Mechanics was replaced by Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics, currently our two best scientific models..

The strictly philosophical doctrine of determinism is nothing more than an archaic and failed concept that is in fact, unscientific.
 
2) even if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition non-influential.
 
3) let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause, or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and randomness is incompatible with choice.
 
4) but what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.
 
5) what if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a cute little puff of logic.
 
i think it's important to fully comprehend this influence-gap.
 
Actually, not so much, it is a contrived concept that has no basis in logic, science, or reason.  All we really need to know about it is that it obfuscates the issue by referring to some kind of gap between a presumed determinism and free will.  Presuming the truth of an idea that has not been established is not a valid argument, and focusing on some contrived gap is nothing but a diversion.  
 
imagine, if you will, that i am constructing a human being. when the recipe calls for me to add "a dash of free-will" i can't just add any old thing, willy nilly; i have to first construct a proper influence-gap to protect my human from the evil determinism. this would be some container that is impervious to all conceivable influence. i probably have a sound-proof, shock-proof, opaque, air-tight, empathy-proof, magic-proof, momentum-proof, time-proof capsule of some sort just laying around my house, i'll just set that to the side for now. ok, adding an empty box to the mix isn't going to do anything of course so we have to put something in it. since whatever is in this i-gap is supposed to advise me on important moral decisions my selection is of critical importance. well, the most intelligent and moral person i know of is my friend george, so since i don't seem to have a better option, i throw george in the i-capsule and seal him in tight. now days, weeks, and months have gone by and i've pretty much forgotten about george until one afternoon i am confronted with an intractable dilemma. i am faced with a decision with staggeringly profound moral implications and i must make a decision immediately. what do i do? well this sounds like a case for the magnificent george! so i locate my everything-proof capsule on which i have scrawled the descriptive term "i-gap" with my handy wax pencil, and i ask my question. i exhaustively explain all of the known factors leading up to and logical implications of this monumental decision to george, my moral, spiritual and financial advisor, and then i wait for an answer, any answer at all. nothing happens. things are getting desperate, so i beg george to give me an answer, to point me in the right direction. nothing happens. i light some candles and wave a magic wand over the i-gap, but still i can't divine any response from george. i realize there is a problem with the i-gap's design. so i quickly scour my garage for spare parts and retrofit a one way intercom system onto the i-gap so i can hear what george has to say. mind you he still can't hear anything or in any way perceive anything that i have to say, thus preserving the integrity of the influence-gap, but now he can speak directly to me, thus becoming an uncaused-cause. of course george has causes, he was born and raised and had both happy and sad experiences, but i'll just ignore all that for now. george is pretty much an uncaused-cause now that he is housed in the exclusive and luxurious, new and improved i-gap. so i ask george again to answer my plea for guidance. nothing happens. every once in a while george does actually say something but it's usually along the lines of "let me out of this f#cking box you god#amned muth#rf#cking muth#rf#cker!" heh, that george is such a kidder!
 
Better yet, imagine, if you will, that you are constructing an argument against free will in which logic and reason are backed up by evidence, which is to say, lets make it about science, rather than fairy dust. 
 
This is no small task because science provides the strongest argument for free will.  The most obvious argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident.  Consequently, the denial of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid. These two aspects of the approach clearly reject the very basis of science and scientific knowledge, leaving nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world. 

Philosophically, the very concepts of logic, reason, and the existence of arguments, presupposes conscious agents that posses free will.

Consequently the argument against Free Will is completely abstract and invalidates both perception and doing, it is a complete rejection of science as valid, and philosophically it amounts to a rejection of the very basis of logic, reason, and truth.

In the end, there is no valid basis upon which the rejection of Free Will can be said to be true of reality.
 
obviously george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.
 
the same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.
 
Nope it’s still an incoherent argument, even if you include unicorns.
 
ipso-facto, no free-will.
 
Ipso-fact, you have not presented a logical argument against free will.

Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent

Oh pulease, how about you  explain this logically incoherent statement. 
Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random - - WILL cannot be random - - FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences - - FREE is incompatible with WILL

The problem here is that this argument is simply a contrived dilemma designed to give the false appearance that it addresses the problem of free will when all it really does is put forth a false dichotomy logical fallacy; these two premises and their conclusions are not exhaustive, which is to say that they are not the only two options.  This is compounded by the fact that both arguments 1 and 2 are logically invalid premises.

Regarding the first conditional statement (#1); “caused by previous influences”, is not a logically conclusive process, the physical evidence has never justified the presumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination. Regarding the second conditional statement (#2); “indistinguishable from random”. This argument introduces the logical fallacy of composition, while it may be true that randomness occurs in some quantum events, it is a hasty generalization fallacy to leap from the fact that some events are uncaused and involve chance, to characterize all events as undetermined and random.  It does not logically follow that if indeterminism is true, which appears to be a scientific fact about reality, that all events are therefore undetermined and random, and therefore we cannot be in control of our will.  Chance can indeed generate alternative possibilities for thought and action without being the necessary cause of our actions, which is to say that they can be adequately determined and therefore free will can exist and be compatible with determinism or indeterminism. 

Your argument is logically refuted on all levels; the structure of the argument is a logical fallacy, as are both of its premises. 


Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
It could very well be that the universe is Stochastic and not deterministic. I touch on it in my own free will debate. There's also just very little evidence from neuroscience to suggest we don't have free will. Determinism is a loser ideology. It makes you into a loser, believing in determinism.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Ehyeh
Atheists are hypocrites

 What have atheist to be hypocritical about?