(April 23, 2017 at 7:11 am)SteveII Wrote: [quote pid='1544074' dateline='1492840191']


Libertarian free will is not incoherent. It is the best description of what we experience and the only reasoning to deny it is to salvage scientism. Those that espouse scientism do not want any part of allowing for emergent properties that themselves have causal power--it turns their deterministic worldview on its ear.

[/quote]

I do find it funny that people keep having a go at science. Its like they are proud of ignorance. "Lets keep the world stupid, that way lies faith" they seem to say.

Science is how you discover the truth of things and as much as possible getting rid of bias in your observations.

Unfortunately for theists, bias is really all they have.

(April 23, 2017 at 7:11 am)SteveII Wrote: Regarding whether it is impossible for people to always choose good, you have to distinguish between broadly logical possible and actually possible (logical modality). A world where everyone chooses good is broadly logically possible--logic alone cannot rule it out. But clearly, additional criteria/information is needed to determine if it is actually possible. I think it is entirely more likely than the negation that trillions of sequential, interacting, human choices cannot all be good.

I am not making the argument that it is actually possible for humans to choose good every single time. I only want to know if you can demonstrate that it's not actually possible. Surely, there is a burden on your part to demonstrate the impossibility if that's what you were claiming earlier. But now that I reread an earlier response of yours, it seems like you were never confident that it's actually impossible, only that you think it is. Either way, if an atheist were to mount the objection that it may be actually possible for all humans to do good all the time (and therefore God could've created a better world than this, whereby all humans choose good all the time), then you cannot just dismiss the objection by placing a burden of proof on the atheist; you have to counter the objection with an argument that shows why it's actually impossible for all humans to choose good all the time. Otherwise, you have to concede the validity of the objection.

Quote:What is your basis for believing determinism/compatiblism to be true? Isn't just the prior assumption of Naturalism--which is clearly question begging?

No, the basis has to do with the logical incoherency of the concept of libertarian free will. You can't logically choose without prior factors determining/influencing your choices. If there are no such factors involved in a choice you make, then it's not really a choice on your part, rather it's just a random selection. You cannot call that free will.

Yep, don't like science-ism, fine, get off the internet. Then give up TV, phone, car, flush toilet, fridge, medicine, .........................

I think Steve loves his use of science.

---

Isn't it interesting that Gutenberg was in it for profit. Things might be completely different now.

(April 23, 2017 at 10:32 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Yep, don't like science-ism, fine, get off the internet. Then give up TV, phone, car, flush toilet, fridge, medicine, .........................

I think Steve loves his use of science.

---

Isn't it interesting that Gutenberg was in it for profit. Things might be completely different now.

When the theist cant point to their book, they point science trying to claim it matches their book. When they cant get away with that they try to paint science as a religion itself. Hypocrites want it both ways. It is science when it points to their book, then suddenly an evil cult when it doesn't. 

@steve

No Steve, science is not a religion and modern scientists are not to blame for the bad claims humans made WORLDWIDE in every religion in antiquity when nobody had our modern tools. It was understandable people made bad guesses back then, but that was then, this is now Steve. Instead of trying to paint us as the bad guys, maybe it would be better for you to consider you got it wrong.

(April 21, 2017 at 1:50 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(April 21, 2017 at 8:53 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Our God grieves and suffers with us in our darkest hours. As far as I'm concerned any God that is powerful enough to raise the dead is sufficiently capable of releasing me from my personal shame and despair.  That is why I trust Him with my life. I love Him because He loved me first.

Hey, it's your invention.  You could make him dance the tarantella naked while eating a BLT if you wanted.  That's the great thing about imaginary friends.  They always see things your way!

That is something I very badly would like to see! [emoji1]

(April 21, 2017 at 4:08 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 21, 2017 at 1:56 pm)Grandizer Wrote: No, you don't get to decide burden of proof lies on atheists when you haven't demonstrated that it is impossible for people to freely choose good all the time and, more importantly, that libertarian free will is even logically possible.


As God, he is responsible for allowing natural disasters to happen.


They tend to cause a lot of harm to people as well.


You really think people have complete freedom to move out of harm's way? I don't.


Save people, of course. Why hurt at all? There's no point to it that I can think of.


Provided he actually does exist, God is always welcome to explain to us why he behaves in such neglectful ways. If he has the power to stop suffering, and he is supposed to be a loving God, then why not act like a powerful and loving God?


I would argue instead that naturalism is increases the likelihood that a loving God does not exist, and that Christian doctrine merely rationalizes why human suffering as a result of natural disasters is allowed by a loving God.


So may a wonderful divine experience that does not involve being harmed by natural disasters.


Why does it even have to be this way anyway? God, if you're out there, answer please?


No God, no sin. And even if God, we don't necessarily choose to sin. And it's not like we necessarily create temptations ourselves.
 

And you know all this, how?

I'm not doing the one line at a time thing. 

The PoE argument is trying to prove that evil and God logically cannot exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist (the proponent of the argument). It is not successful (there are a variety of defenses) and most philosophers have moved on and it only continues to get discussed by the internet atheist.  

If you want to attack free will, you have a long uphill climb. The only defense you have is the assumption of naturalism. 

All kinds of things cause harm to people. Falling off a ladder for one. Nothing evil going on there. 

You want God to save people from natural disasters? Isn't that a wholesale violation of free will? You wanting near constant miraculous intervention does not make the argument. God has sufficient reasons for not acting--one of them being preserving free will. 

3. Of course we choose sin. No, we often don't create a temptation. But that is irrelevant. 

4. That is what I believe based on study and experience. Do I know this to be true. No.

How is it my free will to die in a tornado?!

(April 22, 2017 at 5:12 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(April 19, 2017 at 3:22 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. To explain why humans seem to be predisposed to believe in the supernatural, the naturalist's answer is that humans have evolved to look for causation.

However, that answer is too simplistic and seems contrived. What you are you are describing is just a product of conciousness; for without it, there is a whole host of mental processes that are not possible--including those to reason an unseen cause. So aren't you really attempting to answer the question with "conciousness?"

That opens a whole can of worms for you. There is no scientific explanation for human consciousness. You have a non-physical force acting on a physical world--so a completely deterministic world (naturalism) is out the window. Additionally, how did it evolve? What evolutionary advantage did it serve that got selected (and does that theory have a sufficient selection coefficient)?  

Instead, what most people experience is an awareness of the existence of something more than material (supernatural). They do not reason to the existence of something more than material. This is an important disctinction. It is also the distinction that makes belief in the supernatural a properly basic belief (needs no further justification) and therefore a reasonable belief to have

2. Since metaphysical questions deal with the fundamental nature of reality (a layer science itself relies on), I would say that they are important questions. Questions of philosophy, logic, morality, aesthetics, origins, purpose, and value shape our lives from moment to moment far more than a scientific question/answer. IMO, the fact that we can ask/consider/seek answers to metaphysical questions has no bearing on the answers, so they are not dependent on humans to ponder them. 

3. Strict naturalism is called scientism. Scientism holds that only science can determine truth. That is an untenable position and is to ignore large parts of the reality we find ourselves in.

4. You make good points. There are many people who are nominally Christian and do not live according to its precepts. Self-centeredness is the antithesis of Christianity. As you correctly pointed out, it is a struggle. What college did you attend?

Hello, SteveII.  I appreciate the time and thought that you put into your response.  Also, my apologies for my delayed response.   

Regarding 1, In Mere Christianity, I recall C.S. Lewis's observation that there is a universal "ought" feeling interconnecting us all, and based on my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), Lewis reasoned that this feeling interconnected humanity to god. Now, to illustrate an example, if we view the entirety of consciousness as a grand framework of cybernetic mechanisms, then human consciousness is simply a particular instrument functioning within a grand framework of functioning instruments, and naturally, via a theistic lens, it can be concluded that god would be the grand mechanism that allows everything to function.  Hence, human consciousness is interconnected with god's consciousness; thus, providing a theistic insight into where our consciousness comes from. [1A]

Now, IMO, I have some questions about a theistic explanation of consciousness.  First, if religious belief ultimately occurs via our sense-making processes, perceptions, feelings, etc., then how do humanity's religious practitioners know that they are accurately experiencing and interpreting objective reality/god as it is?  Second, how do they know that their subjective sense-making processes aren't ultimately distorting objective reality (mistakenly but honestly interpreting a god when there actually may not be one)? [1B]

Regarding 2, my point was to illustrate that, IMO, metaphysical questions are a product of human curiosity and that the quest to find meaning in our reality and to discover that meaning may not have any relevance to the way reality actually operates.  Hence, do the answers to the metaphysical questions that humanity ponders actually have substance in our reality?  Is it arrogant of humanity to assume that their metaphysical questions are in any way connected to the manner in which reality actually operates? [2]

I agree with you about 3. As I mentioned earlier, to assume that reality conforms to a humanistic rational mindset could be somewhat presumptuous and could inadvertently close humanity off to other ways of thinking that could help them unlock the mysteries of our reality.  IMO, for the sake of thought and imagination, there could be so many other forms of life (beyond humanity's understanding) out there who have a much simpler and better understanding (or some other equivalent or more advanced function) of reality than we do.

Regarding 4, I attended Abilene Christian University.  Specifically, I completed their online master's program in conflict resolution and reconciliation.  In addition, I attended two residency sessions: the first session trained students in the art of mediation; the second session was a practical skills course that focused a lot on conflict theory and how to be fluent in multiple conflict resolution techniques, as successfully resolving conflict often requires the harmonization/synthesis of multiple approaches/techniques.

1A. I don't have a problem with that description. Isn't the framework that you mention simply the supernatural world? 

1B. Everyone needs to test their beliefs against the real world to see if they are evidenced and logically consistent with a complete worldview. The case for Christianity is cumulative: effects on ourselves/others, historical evidence, current evidence, the Bible, natural theology arguments, etc. I beleive my worldview answers the most questions about our current understanding of reality. They are open to constant examination so it our understanding of reality changes, then I will adjusts in a methodical way. To propose that reality might not be the way that we percieve it leads to a relativism that undermines the pursuit of knowledge.

2. While metaphysical questions might be a product of the human mind, metaphysical truths are not. Metaphysical does not mean subjective meaning or something similar. It seeks concrete answers about reality. 

Quote:Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental nature of reality.[1]
While various views and methods have been called 'metaphysics' across history, this article approaches metaphysics first from the perspective of contemporary analytical philosophy, and then explores metaphysics in other traditions. In this vein, metaphysics seeks to answer two basic questions:[2]

• Ultimately, what is there?
  
• What is it like?
  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

---

(April 23, 2017 at 10:23 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 7:11 am)SteveII Wrote: Regarding whether it is impossible for people to always choose good, you have to distinguish between broadly logical possible and actually possible (logical modality). A world where everyone chooses good is broadly logically possible--logic alone cannot rule it out. But clearly, additional criteria/information is needed to determine if it is actually possible. I think it is entirely more likely than the negation that trillions of sequential, interacting, human choices cannot all be good.

I am not making the argument that it is actually possible for humans to choose good every single time. I only want to know if you can demonstrate that it's not actually possible. Surely, there is a burden on your part to demonstrate the impossibility if that's what you were claiming earlier. But now that I reread an earlier response of yours, it seems like you were never confident that it's actually impossible, only that you think it is.  [1]  Either way, if an atheist were to mount the objection that it may be actually possible for all humans to do good all the time (and therefore God could've created a better world than this, whereby all humans choose good all the time), then you cannot just dismiss the objection by placing a burden of proof on the atheist; you have to counter the objection with an argument that shows why it's actually impossible for all humans to choose good all the time. Otherwise, you have to concede the validity of the objection. [2]

Quote:What is your basis for believing determinism/compatiblism to be true? Isn't just the prior assumption of Naturalism--which is clearly question begging?

No, the basis has to do with the logical incoherency of the concept of libertarian free will. You can't logically choose without prior factors determining/influencing your choices. If there are no such factors involved in a choice you make, then it's not really a choice on your part, rather it's just a random selection. You cannot call that free will. [3]

1. Are you really asking me if it is probable that tens of billions people making hundreds of millions of interacting choices each would always choose good? I am highly confident that it is impossible. 

2. I do not have to show that it is impossible in order to undercut your premise. I have shown that your premise is highly improbable--probably approaching impossible--and that is sufficient to cast doubt on the conclusion.

3. This might be a definition problem of Free Will. This is the one I go by:

Definition: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)

Of course there are internal factors that shape our choices (circumstance/knowledge/memories/beliefs/feelings/etc.). The fact that we decide what to do without any external constraints is free will.

(April 23, 2017 at 10:08 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 7:11 am)SteveII Wrote: [quote pid='1544074' dateline='1492840191']


Libertarian free will is not incoherent. It is the best description of what we experience and the only reasoning to deny it is to salvage scientism. Those that espouse scientism do not want any part of allowing for emergent properties that themselves have causal power--it turns their deterministic worldview on its ear.

I do find it funny that people keep having a go at science. Its like they are proud of ignorance. "Lets keep the world stupid, that way lies faith" they seem to say.

Science is how you discover the truth of things and as much as possible getting rid of bias in your observations.

Unfortunately for theists, bias is really all they have.
[/quote]

Followers of all the worlds religions can accept science only up to the point it conflicts with their personal bias. The good thing about scientific method is that it is neutral, and why a computer or jet or medicine will work in any nation.

(April 23, 2017 at 10:08 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 7:11 am)SteveII Wrote: Libertarian free will is not incoherent. It is the best description of what we experience and the only reasoning to deny it is to salvage scientism. Those that espouse scientism do not want any part of allowing for emergent properties that themselves have causal power--it turns their deterministic worldview on its ear.

I do find it funny that people keep having a go at science. Its like they are proud of ignorance. "Lets keep the world stupid, that way lies faith" they seem to say.

Science is how you discover the truth of things and as much as possible getting rid of bias in your observations.

Unfortunately for theists, bias is really all they have.

You are not clear on your definitions (and probably shouldn't mock people until you are):

Quote:SCIENTISM

Scientism is a term used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[2] The term "scientism" frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[9] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)

So, your comments are not based on anything I said nor accurately reflect...well...anything.

SteveII Wrote:1A. I don't have a problem with that description. Isn't the framework that you mention simply the supernatural world?

Out of curiosity, what if my example framework of consciousness is not supernatural?  What if it is of a nature, possibly one of innumerable natures that is beyond humanity's understanding?

SteveII Wrote:To propose that reality might not be the way that we perceive it leads to a relativism that undermines the pursuit of knowledge.

Could you clarify more on the relativism that was mentioned in the quote above? Why do you think that it would undermine the pursuit of knowledge?

SteveII Wrote:2. While metaphysical questions might be a product of the human mind, metaphysical truths are not. Metaphysical does not mean subjective meaning or something similar. It seeks concrete answers about reality.

Regarding metaphysics, here's a definition that I found in one of my books:

"Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, asking the following questions: What is the nature of reality and of the things that exist? Specifically, such questions as the following are asked: Is there really cause and effect and, if so, how does it work? What is the nature of the physical world, and is there anything other than the physical, such as the mental or spiritual? What is the nature of human beings?  Is there freedom in reality, or is everything predetermined?"(Thiroux and Krasemann, 2015, pg 2)

Now based on this definition, if humans can ponder these questions, then it seems logical to conclude that there are metaphysical truths that would exist regardless of whether humanity ponders them or not.  However, out of curiosity, if metaphysical questions are a product of the human mind's attempt to understand the nature of reality, then could the human mind also be projecting the existence of metaphysical answers/truths onto reality?  In other words, how can humanity accurately discern objective metaphysical truth from preconceived notions of metaphysical truth?    

References

Thiroux, J. P. & Krasemann K. W. (2015). Ethics: Theory and practice (11th ed.). Boston: Pearson.