Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

Can you not see the dreadful consequences of this line of thought?
I was recently reading the text of some of Sir Winston Churchill's speeches in which he recognised the evil of the third reich and the imperative need to oppose it.  In your scenario there can be no such thing as evil, because any concept of evil intent would be just an illusion as there could be no consciously driven intent - just inevitable uncontrollable consequences.  You must face up to the obvious reality that we do have conscious control over our intentions - we can choose what we want.  We can choose between good and evil.

Disagree.

[Maeght]

Dreadful is how it might strike people at first glance.  But the consequences of being unhinged from the paradigm of cause and effect would be far far worse.  That things happen for a reason gives us predictability, it gives us the possibility of understanding and it is only by understanding that we can address problems.  Take Churchill's speech on the evils of the Third Reich.  Calling it 'evil', as we commonly do, tends to obscure our understanding of the reasons that underlay the rise in popularity of National Socialism in 1930s Germany.  'Evil', as a thing does not exist; framing it that way is really just lazy thinking when we can't be bothered to dig more deeply.  The choices we all make, and make constantly, are between selfishness and selflessness.  Choosing to see things in simplistic terms when we could invest more effort in understanding is a choice of selfishness over selflessness.

Agreed.

[ippy]

I'll put up my hands and admit there's a lot of incredulity in this post of mine, having said that I'll ramble on a bit if anyone want's to bear with me well O K thanks.

Some time ago I experienced first hand someone making a similar mistake to the one A B keeps on making more or less every day, like never acceding to a better argument, on seeing the former happening, although not the same mistake A B is making, something similar I swore to myself that when I get someone proving to me without any doubt that I'm completely wrong about anything I will do an immediate about face, as the only rational thing to do when you're plainly wrong.

I was convinced that the sport of boxing was a terrible and a wrong thing to do, I still can't bear to see a knock-out when it makes me think of the inevitable accompanying brain damage involved, I really thought that Dr Edith Summerskill M P had it right about the sport, I then heard a long involved discussion about all angles of Boxing and, on principal, had to admit to those I'd had long running disputes with that on balance I had it wrong about the sport.

Recently where I had been telling a close family member about how easy it was reading a map and why they needed these sat navs to get from A to B, when it is so easy with a map etc.,  and then I went to a big family wedding recently in the backwoods, backwoods to me, of the Midlands somewhere near Bewdley, the 12 seater van we had hired had a sat nav inbuilt, much to my annoyance I had to put up my hands and admit I had it wrong, it was a revelation, my relative is still trying to believe when I immediately admitted I had got it wrong about sat navs.   

What's wrong with admitting where you've got things wrong, even when you've been convinced you're right for years, all right it is annoying to have to feel like you're climbing down in some cases, but surly it's far worse not admitting to being fallible, yes, even I get thing wrong from time to time, have a sense of humour about it when you get it wrong, we all get it wrong occasionally?

I can however see as it's been alluded to in quite a few posts referring to A B, if someone has put a considerable investment into a certain way of life, no matter how misguided we may be surly it has to be far better to face thing as they really are in spite of perhaps a feeling of some loss or loss of face is involved?

I would find it far more acceptable to hear from anyone that holds on to beliefs in the way A B clings like death on to his belief, such as when he refers to some sort of relationship he really believes he has with this god figure of his imagination, wouldn't it be better for believers in general if they were to recognise that in spite of the lack of the rational, they feel these beliefs so strongly they have to reject the rational when holding these beliefs, instead of going around and around in Do Do like circles in, as they think, in an attempt to rationalise the irrational and at the same time going in the same way the Do Do Has gone before them..

Regards ippy

[ekim]

And the point I keep making is that I have the freedom to consciously choose how, when and where to share my faith.  A freedom that any materialist scenario could never allow.

The 'how, when and where' would still be attached to, amongst other things,  your desire to share.  Your faith appears to be attached to Roman Catholic doctrine as opposed to Islamic doctrine.  If so this means that the 'how', is not a free expression.  The materialists, as you call them,  would say that those desires and attachments have a neurological base, most likely in the brain. 

[Alan Burns]

Dreadful is how it might strike people at first glance.  But the consequences of being unhinged from the paradigm of cause and effect would be far far worse.  That things happen for a reason gives us predictability, it gives us the possibility of understanding and it is only by understanding that we can address problems.  Take Churchill's speech on the evils of the Third Reich.  Calling it 'evil', as we commonly do, tends to obscure our understanding of the reasons that underlay the rise in popularity of National Socialism in 1930s Germany.  'Evil', as a thing does not exist; framing it that way is really just lazy thinking when we can't be bothered to dig more deeply.  The choices we all make, and make constantly, are between selfishness and selflessness.  Choosing to see things in simplistic terms when we could invest more effort in understanding is a choice of selfishness over selflessness.

So in the last two sentences you do seem to admit that we have choices, and choices by definition are not pre determined but consciously chosen.

[Enki]

So in the last two sentences you do seem to admit that we have choices, and choices by definition are not pre determined but consciously chosen.

No, choices do not have the definition that you suggest. The idea that we have choices simply means that we can choose between two or more possibilities. That doesn't suggest that choices are only limited to things consciously chosen, as the idea of choice doesn't include the means by which decisions are made. It limits itself to the act of choosing between the alternatives, no matter how that choosing came about.

[Maeght]

.... choices by definition are not pre determined but consciously chosen.

Nope.

[Alan Burns]

What you’ve just said is, “this feeling of control is actually real control because it really feels like actual control” – another piece of piece of circular reasoning.

It does not just feel like it.
I do control my thoughts words and actions.
Every human being does.
I am doing it now.
I am consciously choosing what to type, then controlling my fingers to do it.
I know that this can't be accepted in the materialist scenario because everything must be entirely pre determined by everything which has happened since the Big Bang.
Therefore my conscious ability to exert control must derive from something non material.

[Maeght]

I does not just feel like it.
I do control my thoughts words and actions.
Every human being does.
I am doing it now.
I am consciously choosing what to type, then controlling my fingers to do it.
I know that this can't be accepted in the materialist scenario because everything must be entirely pre determined by everything which has happened since the Big Bang.
Therefore my conscious ability to exert control must derive from something non material.

Nope.

[Stranger]

So in the last two sentences you do seem to admit that we have choices, and choices by definition are not pre determined but consciously chosen.

Good grief, all the time since I was last here and you're still making this simple, basic mistake! Choices are not 'by definition' not predetermined - if they were, they would be random.

Choices have to be made somehow, by some process (conscious or otherwise) and that process is either fully deterministic or contains a random element. You have never, in all these discussions, addressed this point or, for that matter, shown any sign of actually understanding it. Unless it's genuinely going over your head, I assume you wish to wallow in your comforting ignorance...

[Nearly Sane]

Good grief, all the time since I was last here and you're still making this simple, basic mistake! Choices are not 'by definition' not predetermined - if they were, they would be random.

Choices have to be made somehow, by some process (conscious or otherwise) and that process is either fully deterministic or contains a random element. You have never, in all these discussions, addressed this point or, for that matter, shown any sign of actually understanding it. Unless it's genuinely going over your head, I assume you wish to wallow in your comforting ignorance...

To be fair to Alan, the point he was making here seems to have been that torridon was talking as if there is some way choice could be evaluated as good. It's also inherent in your last sentence, that Alan is somehow exercising some freedom in his wishes. Everyday language assumes that Alan's idea is correct, that wishes, desires, wants, are somehow chosen without any determinism.

[floo]

I does not just feel like it.
I do control my thoughts words and actions.
Every human being does.
I am doing it now.
I am consciously choosing what to type, then controlling my fingers to do it.
I know that this can't be accepted in the materialist scenario because everything must be entirely pre determined by everything which has happened since the Big Bang.
Therefore my conscious ability to exert control must derive from something non material.

In your opinion.

[Stranger]

To be fair to Alan, the point he was making here seems to have been that torridon was talking as if there is some way choice could be evaluated as good. It's also inherent in your last sentence, that Alan is somehow exercising some freedom in his wishes. Everyday language assumes that Alan's idea is correct, that wishes, desires, wants, are somehow chosen without any determinism.

None of which changes the logic of the point I made. No matter what language implies or how it fees to us, our 'free will' is either a fully deterministic system or it isn't (which means it contains a random element).

We an do as we want at any one time but we cannot change what we want or our own nature (our method of deciding what to do). We cannot be free from who we are (it doesn't even make sense).

Our experiences (including reading posts here) are of course inputs to our decision making process and could (possibly) change our minds.

All of this is academic outside of arguments about god. For all practical purposes we have free will (in the compatibilist sense) - but it from the point of view of an omniscient, omnipotent creator, it can make no sense at all.

[Stranger]

I does not just feel like it.
I do control my thoughts words and actions.
Every human being does.
I am doing it now.
I am consciously choosing what to type, then controlling my fingers to do it.

Yes, you are. However, you cannot change who you are: your preferences, desires, values, what 'comes to mind' as you consider what to type, the connections you make to your other knowledge and experience, and so on.

I know that this can't be accepted in the materialist scenario...

Drivel.

...because everything must be entirely pre determined by everything which has happened since the Big Bang.

It is actually an open question as to whether the universe is a fully deterministic system.

Therefore my conscious ability to exert control must derive from something non material.

Non sequitur.

[torridon]

So in the last two sentences you do seem to admit that we have choices, and choices by definition are not pre determined but consciously chosen.

In terms of everyday language, yes.  Just as in common parlance we might talk about the 'evil' of the Third Reich.  However there is a deeper and profounder level of insight to these matters.  Try reading some of the last 26000 posts.

[Nearly Sane]

None of which changes the logic of the point I made. No matter what language implies or how it fees to us, our 'free will' is either a fully deterministic system or it isn't (which means it contains a random element).

We an do as we want at any one time but we cannot change what we want or our own nature (our method of deciding what to do). We cannot be free from who we are (it doesn't even make sense).

Our experiences (including reading posts here) are of course inputs to our decision making process and could (possibly) change our minds.

All of this is academic outside of arguments about god. For all practical purposes we have free will (in the compatibilist sense) - but it from the point of view of an omniscient, omnipotent creator, it can make no sense at all.

I mostly agree with that but I think compatibilism is a polite fiction. For all practical purposes, we precisely don't have free will because we only have will. Calling it free is a distraction meant to comfort people.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I does not just feel like it.
I do control my thoughts words and actions.
Every human being does.
I am doing it now.
I am consciously choosing what to type, then controlling my fingers to do it.
I know that this can't be accepted in the materialist scenario because everything must be entirely pre determined by everything which has happened since the Big Bang.
Therefore my conscious ability to exert control must derive from something non material.

As you seem unable to process the explanation of circular reasoning, why not try to work out for yourself where you've gone wrong here?

Consider:

1. Lines 1 - 4 are repetitions of the same assertion.

2. Line 5 relies on the ambiguity of "conscious" - ie, it conflates the everyday usage with the deeper epistemic one you keep missing.

3. Line 6 is false (it's not that "everything must be entirely pre determined by everything which has happened since the Big Bang", but rather that there's neither logic nor evidence for anything other than the material) and irrelevant.

4. Line 7 is a non sequitur (the "therefore" rests only on the prior assertions) and is just a repetition of your opening premise rather than a conclusion drawn from a chain of logic.

Unless you can grasp why circular reasoning is not even wrong you're condemned to repeat endlessly the nonsense of constructions like:

A. God intended us from the beginning

B. The chances of us emerging by chance are unfeasibly remote

C. Therefore God intended us from the beginning

Do you see the problem you give yourself?   

[Stranger]

I mostly agree with that but I think compatibilism is a polite fiction. For all practical purposes, we precisely don't have free will because we only have will. Calling it free is a distraction meant to comfort people.

I agree that the terminology is debatable. However, I think there is more to 'free' than just comfort. There are several ways in which the compatibilist view conforms to our intuitions about "free will". See Dennett Elbow Room or Freedom Evolves.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree that the terminology is debatable. However, I think there is more to 'free' than just comfort. There are several ways in which the compatibilist view conforms to our intuitions about "free will". See Dennett Elbow Room or Freedom Evolves.

But it would appear that our intuitions as per Alan throughout this thread are wrong.

[Stranger]

But it would appear that our intuitions as per Alan throughout this thread are wrong.

Yes. I said there were several ways in which it conforms to our intuitions, not that it conforms to all of them. The intuitions that Alan is using are just logically impossible. To be fair to Alan, I think many people have a logically impossible view of free will.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes. I said there were several ways in which it conforms to our intuitions, not that it conforms to all of them. The intuitions that Alan is using are just logically impossible. To be fair to Alan, I think many people have a logically impossible view of free will.

I am not seeing the difference here. Why is conforming to our intuitions in one, several or a myriad of ways relevant as to whether it is correct?

[Stranger]

I am not seeing the difference here. Why is conforming to our intuitions in one, several or a myriad of ways relevant as to whether it is correct?

I think we both agree about the reality of the situation; this is just a debate about terminology. I don't intent to try to reproduce the arguments in the two book I mentioned in a forum. However, we can say that we have free will or say that we have no free will.

Oxford Dictionaries define free will as The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. I would argue the sophisticated data processing and decision making processes that our minds are, do indeed have that power. Those processes being internally deterministic* does not detract from that - it just means that our choices are the result of the sum total or our nature and nurture - what could be more 'free'?

On the other hand, saying that we have no free will implies something more like fatalism; that no matter what we want or choose, we are constrained by external forces - which is not the case.

* Almost certainly chaotic (mathematical sense) and quite possibly including some pseudo-random inputs.

[ippy]

I does not just feel like it.
I do control my thoughts words and actions.
Every human being does.
I am doing it now.
I am consciously choosing what to type, then controlling my fingers to do it.
I know that this can't be accepted in the materialist scenario because everything must be entirely pre determined by everything which has happened since the Big Bang.
Therefore my conscious ability to exert control must derive from something non material.

You have no way to substantiate this, it's just another one of your rather baseless, silly, pointless, assertions.

It seems to me that your ability to learn, left you some substantial amount of years ago, maybe it's where the indoctrination you've been subjected to takes over?

Oh dear Alan, never mind, it's never too late, Regards ippy 

[Stranger]

4. Line 7 is a non sequitur (the "therefore" rests only on the prior assertions) and is just a repetition of your opening premise rather than a conclusion drawn from a chain of logic.

I'd argue it's worse than that. The prior assertions (even if fully accepted) in no way imply the 'conclusion'. The 'therefore' is just nonsense; the sentence is actually an additional assertion that is unrelated to the previous ones. It's an assertion about what 'I' refers to in the preceding statements.

[Alan Burns]

Good grief, all the time since I was last here and you're still making this simple, basic mistake! Choices are not 'by definition' not predetermined - if they were, they would be random.

Choices have to be made somehow, by some process (conscious or otherwise) and that process is either fully deterministic or contains a random element. You have never, in all these discussions, addressed this point or, for that matter, shown any sign of actually understanding it. Unless it's genuinely going over your head, I assume you wish to wallow in your comforting ignorance...

And you seem still not to be able to tell the difference between pre determined and determined.