God and suffering

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you want to say God must have had an external creator then that just is another boon for external creation.

I don’t know what goes on in the mind of a troll so I can’t even guess at what you get from this kind of straw manning. What was actually said of course was that no such thing – what was actually said was that if you want to posit an “external creator” to answer questions about the universe like, “did it begin?”, “how did it begin?”, “does “begin” even mean anything as space-time itself began with the universe?” etc then you have to ask the same questions of a supposed creator. And if the answer is “don’t know” you may as well say the same of the universe and have done with it. Fletcher’s tunnel remember?   

It certainly wouldn't be for atheism.

Probably wouldn’t be if anyone had actually said that, though only if this supposed creator was a god of some kind though.

Contingency arguments don't just posit an inexplicable they state that things are either explained by another agency or the explanation is within itself. If your theory lacks contingency and necessity it isn't fully  addressing the basic question.

Yes they do posit an inexplicable – that’s exactly what they do. They just replace one inexplicable with another one. If you’re seriously suggesting otherwise, explain “god”.

If the universe contains the necessary entity where and what is it? At the end of the day we focus on what the necessary thing must be like. We know it isn't contingent on the laws of physics or nature.....

We know absolutely no such thing. At best – at very best – we can say something like, “it’s hard to explain given the current state of knowledge about the “laws of physics or nature”, though we have already some plausible hypotheses that may or may not to turn out to be correct”. Not knowing enough about the physical world no more  justifies “god” for you than it justified “Thor” for Norsemen.   

Given all that then it becomes irrelevant as to whether the necessary is in or out of the universe.

Given that “all that” is utter drivel, no it doesn’t.

So, you have a plausible hypothesis but it doesn't need justified? Your taking the piss now.

Wow! When you’re in full straw man mode you really don’t hold back do you. Of course hypotheses need to be justified if they aren’t to remain just hypotheses. The point though is that there are competing hypotheses that are plausible based on current knowledge, but that have not or cannot be tested. What you can’t then do if you think “God” is the real answer is dismiss them out of hand – the burden of proof is on the person who says that they’re all wrong to demonstrate that they’re all wrong. And even if someone could do that, still there’d be no argument for god thereby because there’s no telling whether a more compelling hypothesis might not arrive tomorrow.     

Oh, and “god” isn’t even a hypotheses at all by the way because it lacks everything needed for it to be a hypothesis – coherence, falsifiability at least in principle etc. That’s why competing hypotheses for the big questions about the universe are in principle at least either right or wrong – they’re truth apt, whereas “god” is firmly in “not even wrong” territory because it’s just white noise.

No doubt you’ll stick to your MO of ignoring or straw manning everything that’s just been said to you, but there it is nonetheless.   

[Gordon]

just as you are free to accuse me of telling a lie

I don't think you are a liar, Alan: in my view your are always sincere but essentially misguided, and that the position you advance here; "The simple truth that you are free to determine your own destiny" is a lie. since it patently isn't true.

I also accept that you don't comprehend or accept that it is a lie - but it is.
 

[Stranger]

It is not dishonest to witness to the truth.

Whether what you think is true or not, when you say things like "I have never argued that human will is free of determinism", that is a blatant falsehood because the of the meaning of the word 'determinism'.

Here you are yet again:

determinism - "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will."

Determinism - "Determinism is the philosophical belief that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes."

Determinism - "Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs."


So if your claims are true then the will would be free from determinism.

If the will is not free from determinism, then your claims that our actions are not "inevitable reactions" would be false.

Please, please, for once in your life, try to learn something. Deliberately misusing words is a kind of lie. I've explained the meaning of this word to you many, many times, and given references, so why do you just ignore it and go on misusing the word if it isn't deliberately dishonest?

This is not about whether your claims are true, it's just about understanding the basic meaning of the word "determinism" and using properly.

[torridon]

It is not dishonest to witness to the truth.
The simple truth that you are free to determine your own destiny.

Your posts reveal no truth, but rather chronic confusion accompanied by a stubborn unwillingness to learn the meaning of the relevant concepts and so come to a real understanding of the issue.  Your claims that human will is not free of determinism whilst being free of determinism are not truth, they are unintelligible incoherent nonsense.

[Alan Burns]

Your posts reveal no truth, but rather chronic confusion accompanied by a stubborn unwillingness to learn the meaning of the relevant concepts and so come to a real understanding of the issue.  Your claims that human will is not free of determinism whilst being free of determinism are not truth, they are unintelligible incoherent nonsense.

To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I don’t know what goes on in the mind of a troll so I can’t even guess at what you get from this kind of straw manning. What was actually said of course was that no such thing – what was actually said was that if you want to posit an “external creator” to answer questions about the universe like, “did it begin?”, “how did it begin?”, “does “begin” even mean anything as space-time itself began with the universe?” etc then you have to ask the same questions of a supposed creator. And if the answer is “don’t know” you may as well say the same of the universe and have done with it. Fletcher’s tunnel remember?   

Probably wouldn’t be if anyone had actually said that, though only if this supposed creator was a god of some kind though.

Yes they do posit an inexplicable – that’s exactly what they do. They just replace one inexplicable with another one. If you’re seriously suggesting otherwise, explain “god”.

We know absolutely no such thing. At best – at very best – we can say something like, “it’s hard to explain given the current state of knowledge about the “laws of physics or nature”, though we have already some plausible hypotheses that may or may not to turn out to be correct”. Not knowing enough about the physical world no more  justifies “god” for you than it justified “Thor” for Norsemen.   

Given that “all that” is utter drivel, no it doesn’t.

Wow! When you’re in full straw man mode you really don’t hold back do you. Of course hypotheses need to be justified if they aren’t to remain just hypotheses. The point though is that there are competing hypotheses that are plausible based on current knowledge, but that have not or cannot be tested. What you can’t then do if you think “God” is the real answer is dismiss them out of hand – the burden of proof is on the person who says that they’re all wrong to demonstrate that they’re all wrong. And even if someone could do that, still there’d be no argument for god thereby because there’s no telling whether a more compelling hypothesis might not arrive tomorrow.     

Oh, and “god” isn’t even a hypotheses at all by the way because it lacks everything needed for it to be a hypothesis – coherence, falsifiability at least in principle etc. That’s why competing hypotheses for the big questions about the universe are in principle at least either right or wrong – they’re truth apt, whereas “god” is firmly in “not even wrong” territory because it’s just white noise.

No doubt you’ll stick to your MO of ignoring or straw manning everything that’s just been said to you, but there it is nonetheless.

You were the one wanting me to treat the external creator the same as the universe and I obliged by saying so what if the external creator had it's own external creator.

Your thoughts on contingency though are basically wrong.

[ippy]

To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.

If I ask you nicely Alan, could you tell me how you acquired the information about this soul you have written about, I would find an answer to this question really interesting?

ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


We know absolutely no such thing. At best – at very best – we can say something like, “it’s hard to explain given the current state of knowledge about the “laws of physics or nature”, though we have already some plausible hypotheses that may or may not to turn out to be correct”. Not knowing enough about the physical world no more  justifies “god” for you than it justified “Thor” for Norsemen.   

There are no scientific theories for the provision for nature since they start with nature.

They cannot establish infinity......how could they?

This is all just ''science will find a way'' bollocks. Faith in science if you will.

[Enki]

To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.

You aren't clarifying, Alan. You're making it worse. If it is determined by the 'conscious will of the human soul'(as you state) then human will is the inevitable consequence of the determining factors of this 'human soul'. So, what are the determining factors within the 'human soul' which would produce the inevitable reactions of the human will in making its decisions and choices? Remember, if you say there are none, then all you have is a random element, which is the only other alternative in a deterministic system.

[Walter]

There are no scientific theories for the provision for nature since they start with nature.

They cannot establish infinity......how could they?

This is all just ''science will find a way'' bollocks. Faith in science if you will.

faith in science or faith in a sky fairy ?

hmmmm, let me think about that for a few minutes ..........

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I don’t know what goes on in the mind of a troll 

Could that be due to being a mindless one?

[Stranger]

To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.

And once again: whether the system is physical or not says nothing about whether it is deterministic. Determinism means (as I've just explained again for about the 10,000th time) that "all events are determined completely by previously existing causes" - it says nothing about the physical universe.

Saying that something is determined by "the conscious will" says nothing about how the choice is resolved or whether it is deterministic. Either it is deterministic, and therefore fully resolved by previously existing causes (physical, magical, or whatever) or it isn't deterministic. If it isn't, then it is partially due to no causes and is therefore partly random.

Stamping your foot and doing your silly broken speak-your-weight machine repetition of the same reasoning-free contradictory assertions while ignoring all the counterarguments won't change that.

Still waiting for the logic you said you had or an honest admission that you have none.....

......and waiting.......

.......and waiting......

.......and waiting.....

Isn't it about time for some honesty?

[torridon]

To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.

Read Stranger's reply #152 for clarification.  There is no physical determinism, there is just determinism.  Neither is there pink determinism or mid-week determinism or late night shopping determinism for the elderly, there is just determinism meaning that events are consequences of prior causes otherwise said events are random, having no cause.  You cannot just carve out your own private definitions of words in order to support a conclusion that you like.  We cannot be free of physical determinism because physical determinism is not a thing.

Our choices cannot be free of determinism without being random.  If you insist that our choices are not random then you are insisting that human mind is a deterministic system, and therefore our feeling that we could have chosen differently (for instance) must be somewhat illusory.

[ekim]

To clarify once again:
My claim is that the defining cause of an act of human will is free of physical determinism, because it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.

... and from the religious perspective, the action of the human soul is determined by either self centred desires or the Will of God.  There is no free will but there is a choice between attachment to the former or submission to the latter.

[Alan Burns]

Whether what you think is true or not, when you say things like "I have never argued that human will is free of determinism", that is a blatant falsehood because the of the meaning of the word 'determinism'.

Here you are yet again:

determinism - "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will."

Determinism - "Determinism is the philosophical belief that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes."

Determinism - "Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs."


So if your claims are true then the will would be free from determinism.

If the will is not free from determinism, then your claims that our actions are not "inevitable reactions" would be false.

Please, please, for once in your life, try to learn something. Deliberately misusing words is a kind of lie. I've explained the meaning of this word to you many, many times, and given references, so why do you just ignore it and go on misusing the word if it isn't deliberately dishonest?

This is not about whether your claims are true, it's just about understanding the basic meaning of the word "determinism" and using properly.

If you take the "ism" out of determinism, it would help you see the meaning of what I am saying.  The quotations you refer to are all based on a particular philosophical point of view which uses this label.  My contention is what determines an act of human will.  My argument that it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul reflects the reality behind the freedom we all enjoy.

[torridon]

If you take the "ism" out of determinism, it would help you see the meaning of what I am saying.  The quotations you refer to are all based on a particular philosophical point of view which uses this label.  My contention is what determines an act of human will.  My argument that it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul reflects the reality behind the freedom we all enjoy.

Whatever it is that is resolving the choice, be it human will, a sparrow's will, a computer program or whatever, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the principle of determinism.  Read for comprehension, this has been explained to you so many times it beggars belief that it has not sunk in yet.  Irrespective of whatever is doing the choosing a choice is still either deterministic (an inevitable, predictable outcome of prior causes) or it is not, which means it is random.

[Gordon]

If you take the "ism" out of determinism, it would help you see the meaning of what I am saying.  The quotations you refer to are all based on a particular philosophical point of view which uses this label.  My contention is what determines an act of human will.  My argument that it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul reflects the reality behind the freedom we all enjoy.

In which case 'souls' are 'real' so please demonstrate: a list of attributes and how these can be verified, the mode of action and how this can be verified along with a basis for falsification will be the bare minimum you'll need to set out.

[Stranger]

If you take the "ism" out of determinism, it would help you see the meaning of what I am saying.  The quotations you refer to are all based on a particular philosophical point of view which uses this label.

I know what you're saying Alan, you've posted it about 10,000 times and I could pretty much recite it all from memory. The point is that the quotes tell you what the word determinism means - and that when you claim you are not denying determinism, that is actually a false statement. Determinism means what you call an "inevitable reaction".

If only to allow for clarity of this debate, will you at least admit that and stop trying to apply determinism to what you are proposing?

[Enki]

If you take the "ism" out of determinism, it would help you see the meaning of what I am saying.  The quotations you refer to are all based on a particular philosophical point of view which uses this label.  My contention is what determines an act of human will.  My argument that it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul reflects the reality behind the freedom we all enjoy.

In your post 39498 of the 'Searching for God' thread you said this:

I have never denied that human will is deterministic.  It derives 100% from the conscious will of the human soul.

Now the word 'deterministic' means:

relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.

Which means that 'the conscious will of the human soul' has to be part of this deterministic process which you had agreed to.

However, now you say that you would like to alter the word determinism to leave the 'ism' out so that you don't have to go along with what you said before.

In my book that's called hypocrisy, Alan!


I have asked you several questions recently:

1) On April 5th(on this thread):

So, what are the determining factors within the 'human soul' which would produce the inevitable reactions of the human will in making its decisions and choices?

2) On Feb 23rd(on the 'Searching for God' thread):

How do we make decisions? Never mind the 'opportunity', what about the process?

3) On Feb 19th(on the 'Searching for God' thread):

However let's take your first premise, which was that we have the reality of our own freedom to consciously contemplate and think about the source of our own thought processes.

Could you please lay out the logical steps from this premise, such that it leads to a conclusion that you wish to make?

None of which you have addressed at all.

On the other hand, you dived into this thread on April 3rd (Post 49) to ask Blue two questions:

But what precisely is it that discerns what is good and what is bad in the materialistic scenario?
Can the properties of material elements discern such things?

to which you got immediate answers in the next post.

It seems to me that you ask questions and expect answers, but if someone else asks you questions, then you ignore/avoid/evade the awkward parts or simply don't bother to answer at all.

In my book that's called hypocrisy, Alan!

[Alan Burns]

I know what you're saying Alan, you've posted it about 10,000 times and I could pretty much recite it all from memory. The point is that the quotes tell you what the word determinism means - and that when you claim you are not denying determinism, that is actually a false statement. Determinism means what you call an "inevitable reaction".

If only to allow for clarity of this debate, will you at least admit that and stop trying to apply determinism to what you are proposing?

So what determines "Love".  Do you consider Love to be just an inevitable, unavoidable reaction?

For God so Loved the world, that He sent His only son ....

God gave us the ability to love, as He loved, through the gift of free will.

[Alan Burns]

In your post 39498 of the 'Searching for God' thread you said this:

I have never denied that human will is deterministic.  It derives 100% from the conscious will of the human soul.

Now the word 'deterministic' means:

relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.

Which means that 'the conscious will of the human soul' has to be part of this deterministic process which you had agreed to.

However, now you say that you would like to alter the word determinism to leave the 'ism' out so that you don't have to go along with what you said before.

In my book that's called hypocrisy, Alan!

The selected quote relating to "deterministic" begins with the words:
" relating to the philosophical doctrine ..."
A philosophical doctrine can't be regarded as a definition of truth - it is a belief in the same category as many other doctrines, and as such can't be regarded as the absolute truth you and others try to imply.

[Stranger]

The selected quote relating to "deterministic" begins with the words:
" relating to the philosophical doctrine ..."
A philosophical doctrine can't be regarded as a definition of truth - it is a belief in the same category as many other doctrines, and as such can't be regarded as the absolute truth you and others try to imply.

Oh FFS, this isn't rocket science! It's just about using words correctly - have you never learned to use a dictionary?

The words deterministic and determinism are defined as relating to the philosophical doctrine. Hence, when you say "I have never denied that human will is deterministic", you are saying that you have never denied the doctrine - which you quite obviously have and do.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of either your claims or those of (the philosophical doctrine of) determinism, your claims about human will do deny the truth of the (the philosophical doctrine of) determinism, so you saying "I have never denied that human will is deterministic" is a false statement.

[Stranger]

I know what you're saying Alan, you've posted it about 10,000 times and I could pretty much recite it all from memory. The point is that the quotes tell you what the word determinism means - and that when you claim you are not denying determinism, that is actually a false statement. Determinism means what you call an "inevitable reaction".

If only to allow for clarity of this debate, will you at least admit that and stop trying to apply determinism to what you are proposing?

So what determines "Love".  Do you consider Love to be just an inevitable, unavoidable reaction?

What the fuck has that got to do with my post that you quoted?

Why won't you just admit that you were using the word determinism incorrectly?

[Enki]

The selected quote relating to "deterministic" begins with the words:
" relating to the philosophical doctrine ..."
A philosophical doctrine can't be regarded as a definition of truth - it is a belief in the same category as many other doctrines, and as such can't be regarded as the absolute truth you and others try to imply.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? I did not and have never suggested in any way that this was an absolute truth. What I suggested, and your words bear witness to that fact, is that you 'have 'never denied that the human will is deterministic'. Yet you now say that you want to get rid of the 'ism' so that you can change the meaning to suit yourself.

In my book that's called hypocrisy, Alan!

Duly noted also is the way you have completely ignored my second point, not that I'm surprised. If you are an example of what your religion does for you, I would really not wish to be any part of it.

[Walter]

religious conditioning perhaps ,Alan?

https://youtu.be/MAdyRwmHMc8