God and suffering

[Walt Zingmatilder]

religious conditioning perhaps ,Alan?

https://youtu.be/MAdyRwmHMc8

I remember my old dad, a bluff scotsman, saying that they invented Yorkshire pudding so they wouldn't have to give their kids so much meat.

[Alan Burns]

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.

What I disagree with is simply the claim within the "determinism" quote that "events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will." My contention is that "will" is the determining source.  My claim that we have conscious freedom to determine our own thoughts, words and actions can still be considered as deterministic because human willpower is the determining factor.  I know that this contradicts the quoted doctrine of determinism, but this doctrine does not alter or define the meaning of "deterministic" in the context I used it.

[Walter]

I remember my old dad, a bluff scotsman, saying that they invented Yorkshire pudding so they wouldn't have to give their kids so much meat.

I can confirm that is ........TRUE

my granny would give us a plate sized pud with either onion gravy or jam BEFORE the main course . bloody gorgeous !

[Stranger]

What I disagree with is simply the claim within the "determinism" quote that "events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will." My contention is that "will" is the determining source.  My claim that we have conscious freedom to determine our own thoughts, words and actions can still be considered as deterministic because human willpower is the determining factor.  I know that this contradicts the quoted doctrine of determinism, but this doctrine does not alter or define the meaning of "deterministic" in the context I used it.

What the hell is wrong with you Alan? You're arguing against the English language!

Like it or not, the words 'deterministic' and 'determinism' mean what they mean in the English language, regardless of whether you think the world works like that or not. Trying to redefine the English language is childish and idiotic. I can't make the word "carrot" mean "melon" just because I don't like it.

If you think human will doesn't operate deterministically, according to the word's accepted definition, (which you obviously don't) then you'll have to use another term to describe the way you think it works. It's not like the term isn't commonly used in the context of "free will", that's why compatibilism (which you also disagree with) is defined in terms of determinism. This is the problem with not doing your homework.

You're not Humpty Dumpty, you have to accept the language as it is - grow the fuck up!

[Gordon]

What I disagree with is simply the claim within the "determinism" quote that "events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will." My contention is that "will" is the determining source.

So, is 'will' immune from determinsim?

My claim that we have conscious freedom to determine our own thoughts, words and actions can still be considered as deterministic because human willpower is the determining factor.

Then you need to explain why will is some kind of source of determinism while not being subject to determinism.

I know that this contradicts the quoted doctrine of determinism, but this doctrine does not alter or define the meaning of "deterministic" in the context I used it.

That, Alan, is because your 'context' is nonsensically incoherent and, moreover, you don't get to invent your own definitions of well-established terms.

[Alan Burns]

What the hell is wrong with you Alan? You're arguing against the English language!

Like it or not, the words 'deterministic' and 'determinism' mean what they mean in the English language, regardless of whether you think the world works like that or not. Trying to redefine the English language is childish and idiotic. I can't make the word "carrot" mean "melon" just because I don't like it.

If you think human will doesn't operate deterministically, according to the word's accepted definition, (which you obviously don't) then you'll have to use another term to describe the way you think it works. It's not like the term isn't commonly used in the context of "free will", that's why compatibilism (which you also disagree with) is defined in terms of determinism. This is the problem with not doing your homework.

You're not Humpty Dumpty, you have to accept the language as it is - grow the fuck up!

I was presuming the word "deterministic" was being used as it pertains to the verb "determine" rather than the philosophical doctrine of determinism.

If you do not agree with me using it in this context, you can simply translate my intended meaning to be "determined by the power of conscious human will".  You really are splitting hairs in this.

[Nearly Sane]

I was presuming the word "deterministic" was being used as it pertains to the verb "determine" rather than the philosophical doctrine of determinism.

If you do not agree with me using it in this context, you can simply translate my intended meaning to be "determined by the power of conscious human will".  You really are splitting hairs in this.

Lying drivel

[Stranger]

I was presuming the word "deterministic" was being used as it pertains to the verb "determine" rather than the philosophical doctrine of determinism.

You "presumed" wrong, not only is that not what the word means, it's been explained to you multiple times that that is not what it means and that it isn't the way everybody else is using the word. So making such a "presumption" was either incredibly stupid of you, an admission that you've been paying no attention at all, or saying that you were making the presumption is just a lie.

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

deterministic - believing that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way, or relating to this belief

deterministic - the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.

deterministic - using or believing in the idea that everything is caused by another event or action and so you are not free to choose what you do

And so on, and so on, and so on...

If you do not agree with me using it in this context, you can simply translate my intended meaning to be "determined by the power of conscious human will".  You really are splitting hairs in this.

It's not splitting hairs, it makes communicating with you difficult because you keep on twisting the meanings of words so you can avoid the actual points - hence all the stupid protestations that you've never denied determinism when people use the word in its usual way. Distorting the language is a kind of lying and you do the same sort of thing with words like "choice" and "control".

And anyway, why should everybody else have to learn Alan baby-speak instead of you actually learning to use a dictionary?

[Gordon]

I was presuming the word "deterministic" was being used as it pertains to the verb "determine" rather than the philosophical doctrine of determinism.

Bollocks: you well know what is meant by determinism, since this has been explained to you many times - such as in #152 in this very thread when Stranger did so again, using in a large red font. So you have no reason to indulge in mendacious equivocation or an excuse for pretending you haven't.

If you do not agree with me using it in this context, you can simply translate my intended meaning to be "determined by the power of conscious human will".  You really are splitting hairs in this.

Or you can simply stop the mendacious equivocation. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 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.     

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. 

So, in paragraph two you are saying the God hypothesis isn't because it lacks falsifiability but then in paragraph one you talk about ''competing hypotheses that are plausible based on current knowledge, but that have not or cannot be tested.''

You are quite confused here aren't you? I agree that those that cannot be tested aren't ''plausible hypothesis though''

So since we are here testability would seem to upset any proposal of establishing anything infinite.

Which means I suppose we are waiting on ''quantum fluctuations'' or ''borrowing''   throwing up new universes repeatably.

And then of course we are left with the question. What is the origin of quantum fields Quantum fields?

Some times I feel in the one argument quantum fields are being used as ''Starting the universe'' and yet are also used to show how the universe is infinite. This use of the same thing in two contradictory ideas looks fallacious.

[Roses]

So, in paragraph two you are saying the God hypothesis isn't because it lacks falsifiability but then in paragraph one you talk about ''competing hypotheses that are plausible based on current knowledge, but that have not or cannot be tested.''

You are quite confused here aren't you? I agree that those that cannot be tested aren't ''plausible hypothesis though''

So since we are here testability would seem to upset any proposal of establishing anything infinite.

Which means I suppose we are waiting on ''quantum fluctuations'' or ''borrowing''   throwing up new universes repeatably.

And then of course we are left with the question. What is the origin of quantum fields Quantum fields?

Some times I feel in the one argument quantum fields are being used as ''Starting the universe'' and yet are also used to show how the universe is infinite. This use of the same thing in two contradictory ideas looks fallacious.

Is English your first language, your posts don't give that impression?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is English your first language, your posts don't give that impression?

Why, have you got something against foreigners?

[Roses]

Why, have you got something against foreigners?

Of course not, but most of your posts make very little sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course not, but most of your posts make very little sense.

a) Do you actually read them?
b) They always seem to get a good response. I expect the board ground to a virtual halt when I was gone.

[Roses]

a) Do you actually read them?
b) They always seem to get a good response. I expect the board ground to a virtual halt when I was gone.

You enjoy being a WUM.

[SteveH]

Is English your first language, your posts don't give that impression?

Question mark after "language"; new sentence at "Your"; and a full stop or exclamation mark after "impression".

[Roses]

Question mark after "language"; new sentence at "Your"; and a full stop or exclamation mark after "impression".

Thank you for that lesson, I will help you when your spelling gets a bit muddled.

[Owlswing]

Question mark after "language"; new sentence at "Your"; and a full stop or exclamation mark after "impression".

Living up to your nom-de-plume I see!

However, I cannot see what this comment has to do with the title of the thread.

[Nearly Sane]

Living up to your nom-de-plume I see!

However, I cannot see what this comment has to do with the title of the thread.

You need to understand that this is just 2 posters having a private flirt over multiple threads.

[jeremyp]

You need to understand that this is just 2 posters having a private flirt over multiple threads.

Yeah. I’m staying out of it.

[Owlswing]

 You need to understand that this is just 2 posters having a private flirt over multiple threads.

Oh sorry - might this support a "Private Flirt" topic?

[Nearly Sane]

Oh sorry - might this support a "Private Flirt" topic?

I think that might be limiting? 

[SteveH]

Living up to your nom-de-plume I see!

However, I cannot see what this comment has to do with the title of the thread.

I was pointing out the irony of LR criticising someone else's English with a badly-puntuated post.

[jeremyp]

I was pointing out the irony of LR criticising someone else's English with a badly-puntuated post.

No hyphen needed between "badly" and "puntuated" [sic]. "Punctuated" spelled incorrectly. 

[Roses]

I was pointing out the irony of LR criticising someone else's English with a badly-puntuated post.

The irony is that you criticised my post, but don't bother to check your BAD spelling!