|
General Random thoughts and ideas. "General" does not mean random drivel, nonsense or inane silliness. |
View Poll Results: Why do you accept the proposition that a deity exists? | |||
I know God through reason, science, etc. | 3 | 7.89% | |
I accept God through belief or personal revelation | 11 | 28.95% | |
Other | 12 | 31.58% | |
I am an atheist but want to vote in this poll because polls are dope | 12 | 31.58% | |
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#133
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
@Aldin
Going to include a couple of quotes, but not too many. Determinism: Quote:
Belief and Choice: Well see, I think on this matter you sometimes equivocate two separate definitions of the word belief, and that causes a bit of confusion. You often try and compare the belief in the existence of something, to the belief or trust that something will do something. For instance, one can believe in god, or one can believe that his car functions properly, I believe was the example you gave. The two are fundamentally different because we know the car exists and how it is supposed to function; at this point we just trust that it will do its job. On the subject of a deity, we don't know it exists. Yes, I wanted you to interact with Santa Clause. But not in that manner. I want you to choose to believe in Santa Clause. Because if you can't, then clearly belief is a direct product of knowledge. If you can, then we can talk about belief being a choice. Your example of a child doesn't seem to address the issue. Yes, some children are convinced by different amount of evidence, but that doesn't in anyway follow that belief is a choice. I don't see why it would imply that at all. The child is simply shaped by other knowledge and experiences or flaws in reasoning he or she possesses that lead that child to the illogical conclusion that Santa exist. The fact that reason eventually sways them shows that it is reason, not choice, that determine belief. Let's try this. If belief was dictated by choice, and not by knowledge, then we'd have a vastly different world. The bank robber would choose to believe the police didn't exist, I would choose to believe that Karma exists, and everyone, no matter who they are, would choose to believe that Santa exist (who doesn't want presents? Coal included) But we don't see that in the world. Instead, for the most part, we see people directly swayed by their knowledge. Is their knowledge often incorrect? Is their reasoning flawed? For sure. But the reason people's beliefs tend to coincide with reality and experience is because beliefs are directly influenced by these things. On the last point of determinism -- no. If belief is forced by knowledge we do not wind up at universal determinism. And for my argument to work, I do not need to embrace universal determinism. Is existential belief deterministic? Yes. Is choice in what game I play, what I eat, who I date, or where I go deterministic by way of the argument I am making? No. And there's no common link between existential belief and those other items to suggest that by making existential belief deterministic the others must also be. So when you ask, "What would not be deterministic in a world where we don't choose what we believe?" my answer is everything save belief. Does Choice Invalidate My Argument Honestly, your example is moot. Again. Because it's an inaccurate comparison. You are neither omnipotent, nor omniscient. Supposing I grant you benevolence towards your sister, you still lack the knowledge of what it takes to convince her, and you may even lack the power to do so. Deities, Deities... I don't see how your sister observing different evidence and making logical errors equates to choice. Her conclusion, while flying in the face of modern science, is one many people come to because they don't understand the evidence, or make some error while trying to reason through it. I've seen it in a number of anti-vac people, and I don't see any reason to accept that it is a choice. They seem wholly convinced by way of erred reason. Quote:
Quote:
So my issue at this point is that you keep hearkening to these examples that are not directly related the question at hand. When dealing with existential belief, I demonstrate that when we know something to exist, that existence cannot be denied. I've touched on this time and again with examples of trying to disbelieve in my girlfriend, or have you disbelieve in a relative. But the results are clear that when we know of something, we cannot choose to deny knowledge of it. We can lie to other people about it, but we cannot choose to not believe. So barring all other examples about cars, anti-vaccination, or what have you, let's deal with the examples directly correlated with belief. Because the other examples aren't good examples as they fail to address the question of choosing to believe in someone's existence. My example does. How do you address or handle this? Are you able to choose to accept or deny your wife's existence? The answer is no. You cannot choose that. By way of extrapolation then, it follows that one cannot choose to lack belief in something they know to exist. Ergo, the existential belief is not a choice, it is a product of knowledge, and the argument works fine. Until this issue can be addressed, I don't think you have ground to stand on to deny the deterministic nature of existential belief. And if you claim that it's different for god then it is for humans, that we can't have knowledge of god the way we have knowledge of other humans, then you effectively support my conclusion. Because you limit either god's omniscience or omnipotence. ~JS |
#134
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Quote:
There is no reason why I should accept your premise, Aldin, that "quantum mechanics" is synonymous somehow with "deity." Quantum mechanics might be more complex than you or I are capable of understanding, without training or study, but that doesn't mean it's a matter of blind faith: Quote:
There are lots of things in the world that, when studied closely, I don't understand. I don't reject the input of experts out of hand, and give up and say "this is the same as the presence of a divine being." You don't have burden of proving the existence of God, aldin, unless you *want* to prove the existence of God. But why should you? Have your faith. Cherish it, it's special. You can't prove the existence of God, though, and you certainly won't get there by trying to hand-wave away real science as though it's somehow as far beyond our ken as an invisible, unmeasurable divine being. |
#135
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
DS,
I don't really have a dog in the hunt of whether or not atheists believe in universal determinism. I only tend to go there when it is a specific point in a specific discussion as it is with JS. I expanded on how I tend to see determinism from an atheist perspective as I got drawn in to other responses simply because I enjoy these conversations. The truth is that everyone believes in many, many things they cannot prove. I do find, however, that some tend to be unaware of this about themselves. EDIT I will respond to JS later after I have slept on it He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#136
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
I'm going to take a move out of Ollie's playbook and respond to one small piece of a large conversation.
Quote:
If there is no threat to humans by way of non-belief, this could all stand with an omniscient, omnipotent God. In fact, I think it would also be valid if there is threat to humans by way of non-belief, if God has it out for some people (which, judging to my limited biblical knowledge seems to be the case if Yahweh is real and accurately represented in the Bible). Repaints My Maps Online Maps Customs CoN is FuN
Q3C Custom Contests How can you tell which kid at the playground is going to grow up to be a trombone player?
Spoiler Alert!
|
#137
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Yeah, if I don't respond for a while it's just because I have work, and then sleep, and social commitments. So sorry my replies can take a while.
Quote:
But my post was specifically aimed at the claim that we *cannot* know God the way we know humans. And that only stands in opposition to God's omnipotence and omniscience. Whether or not he is all loving, or whether or not non-belief is a threat to humanity isn't directly correlated to the claim I was attempting to preempt. Because benevolence and threat to humanity aren't related to what we can know, those are related to if God would want us to know. And my specific claim dealt with can. ~JS |
#138
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Quote:
Your definition of omnipotent seems to be taking omni to its very farthest reaches. Now I point back to Sean Murray, the creator of No Man's Sky. While he is far from a God, he could be called omnipotent in reference to his creation. Sure, his coding skills limit his potential, and the very nature of code is sure to impact what he is capable of, but in the end all of his creation comes from him, thus allowing for a somewhat limited definition of omnipotent to be viable. Does omnipotent mean you can do everything, or do everything within some boundaries of what is possible to do? Same question as far as omniscient. My answer to both of these is that, in reality, I don't know; but I think both definitions for both words are useful in these kinds of discussions (as useful as anything is in these discussions). So, let's put in our head a God that is omnipotent and omniscient, but limited to what is possible to do and know (you don't have to try to believe in him, just imagine ). Let's throw all-loving into the mix, too. Can you get a God that has it out for some people in this scenario? Sure. If in creating people it is necessary for there to be the evil that we see in the world, then all of this can work together. If He loves everyone, then he would want as many of them to be happy as possible. If some of these people have to be crummy and will necessarily bring down the happiness of others, in this life and the next, then an all-loving God would have to have it out for those people for the sake of the many. He might feel terribly about having to do this, but nonetheless his omni-powers are limited to what is possible and this is the best possible mode of operation for him. Additionally, I think that the idea that we can't know whether or not a deity exists is kind of a common sense argument. We don't have concrete evidence pointing toward a deity, and it is impossible to find concrete evidence against a deity (yeah, yeah, FSM and Six Gamblers and all that, I definitely agree that those are just as likely as any individual religion's God or Gods). Belief in God vs. belief in your girlfriend are fundamentally different, because if there is a God they clearly either have hidden themselves from us and demand faith, or are somehow incapable of proving their existence to us; but you can see your girlfriend and we have concrete evidence for scientific theories even if I individually don't really understand them. I don't think them being fundamentally different negates your idea that belief is not a choice, though. Repaints My Maps Online Maps Customs CoN is FuN
Q3C Custom Contests How can you tell which kid at the playground is going to grow up to be a trombone player?
Spoiler Alert!
|
#139
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
So… there are a few different issues here.
The one which caused my edit last night is that I find myself somewhat offended by your post, though I do not believe there was any intent on your part to cause offense. You accuse me of equivocation. It’s a pretty serious accusation. It implies either that I am intentionally trying to deceive by shifting the application of meaning, or that I am wrong about how I am understanding the word itself. Also, you state that my sister is making logical errors, doesn’t understand the evidence or has failed to reason through the evidence. This is the part that really got me upset. You don’t know my sister and you don’t know why she has made the choices she has. Implying that if she were, say, as clever as you are, that she would believe differently is a direct insult to her intelligence and ability to think logically. The worst thing about it is that no matter how I try to read your words I simply can’t come to a different conclusion. In your world, my sister can’t possibly be as clear-headed and right-thinking as you because she’s seen the same evidence you have and believes something different. Then you trivialize my belief in the Christian God by saying that if many options exist that God is only “a pick out of a hat”. Since I specifically addressed why this is not true in the post to which you were responding, I can only read this as an insult to my intelligence. That as with my sister, I am apparently incapable of clear-headed right-thinking when it comes to examining the available evidence as it relates to the creator of the universe. I am coming to feel that you find my position contemptible and unworthy of serious consideration. Even so, I will attempt a response. Determinism must be addressed first. You believe in determinism. I have already acknowledged that your syllogism can function given determinism. I am, however, unwilling to grant that the universe is deterministic. You are incapable of proving determinism. It is an assumption you make. Therefore, nothing in my response will allow for any sort of determinism. If you require determinism to respond to any of this, then your argument has failed for lack of proof. Knowledge is an interesting concept. In some ways, the only two things I feel comfortable saying that I KNOW are that I exist and that I am aware of my existence. And in some ways I assume those more than I know them because they are completely necessary as an underpinning to thinking or doing anything which I would comfortably consider rational. Beyond that, there are many, many things I accept as fact essentially without question. The physical universe really exists. I am a human interacting with other real humans on an Earth that pretty much corresponds to a globe of Earth which might be seen in a school setting and has the places and features and creatures around that globe that correspond to maps and information I could find on google. Beliefs at this level are fairly necessary to function in a way which I would comfortably consider rational. And yet I still think of those as beliefs. If you did not share those beliefs with me, I don’t have any evidence available to me that you would not already have with which I could convince you differently. Probably better than the above, I accept the reality of my day-to-day existence. I interact with my job, ergo it is real. I interact with my family, ergo they are real. I interact with God, ergo He is real. If you told me that the country of Nauru didn’t actually exist and provided a plausible explanation for the information that exists about it, then never having been there or having met someone from there it would be relatively easy for me to reconsider my acceptance of Nauru as real. If you told me my family wasn’t real, you would need to plausibly explain away my actual experiences with them. I think that you would say that anything that someone accepts as real (or unreal) from generally available information (google, et al) or from personal experience, is “knowledge”, as opposed to belief. I also think you have a much lower barrier for what you consider to be knowledge than I do. From my perspective, you seem to use belief and knowledge somewhat interchangeably. If I correctly understand your position that belief is not a choice, then all belief is determined by knowledge and could be considered to be some sort of offshoot of knowledge. In that calculation, belief is nothing more than projecting the future on the basis of the present and past. This position denies that anyone exists as a decision maker. It is inherently deterministic. People make their decisions based on their beliefs. If belief is pre-determined, then so is that decision making. Actions follow decisions, so if the decisions were pre-determined then so are the actions. We all move through life deciding and acting based on our beliefs and for those decisions and actions to result from agency, belief cannot be deterministic. We have agency. We can choose what we do, right or wrong. Those choices stem from our beliefs. Knowledge is a given, based on that knowledge we choose what to believe from the center of whatever makes us, us. It is why different people, having the same information, believe different things. The most straightforward example I can think of is a coin flip. Prior to flipping a coin, I can choose to believe whether it will land heads or tails. Still before flipping it, I can change to believing it will be the opposite result. While it is in the air, I can change my belief yet again, and after it lands but before seeing the result can change the belief yet again. It is incredibly easy to change that belief. And it is my choice to change it each time. Once the coin lands and I have observed it, I will believe the result is whatever is shown. You could say at that point that belief would pass to knowledge. Let’s say however, that the coin lands and I do not personally observe it. It is either heads or tails and I believe it is heads. Two of my friends have observed the coin. For whatever reason, one is telling me it is indeed heads and the other is telling me it is tails. At this point I continue to choose what to believe about the coin. A definite state exists where it is either heads or tails, but I have reasons I might choose to believe either. Trickier, both my friends have now reported that it is tails, but I have not observed it myself. Let’s say I have a reason I want it to be heads. Now I still have a choice of whether or not to believe my friends. And there are reasons I might choose to continue to believe it is heads even if both reported to me that it was tails. The point is my ability to decide what to believe and that there are any number of reasons I might make one decision over another. Absent determinism and given agency, these things simply must be true. I think I’ll stop here for the moment. There’s more than enough to chew on there. Without determinism, we have agency. With agency, we have choice. With choice, we have unforced belief. ~Aldin, after a night of sleep He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#140
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
@Aldin
I apologize that I had written my post in such a way that you found it demeaning. Such was not my intention. Firstly, I consider you a profoundly intelligent individual, and an exceptional apologist. I find you to be a challenging debater, one who often has an eye for detail and you are able to express yourself thoroughly and with clarity and professionalism. I've always considered you at the very least my intellectual equal, and more often than not, my intellectual superior. That opinion has never changed, and I doubt it ever will. I wish to start with my accusation of what I believe to be an equivocation fallacy. This refers to how you use two separate version of belief and then conflate them for the use of argument. I did not mean to insinuate this was intentional, only and oversight. That said, it was not an attack on your intelligence. I'm quite certain I've committed a number of logical oversights in this discussion, not to mention my day-to-day lifestyle, including equivocation fallacies. I merely sought to point out an inconsistency in your argument, one that everyone falls prey to at one time or another. In no way was it aimed to belittle you, or accuse you of foul play. On the subject of your sister -- again, I intend no offense. And you shouldn't feel this as an afront to your sister. From the beginning of the discussion I have said that if one believes falsely, they have made one of the aforementioned mistakes in their reasoning. I was simply continuing to apply the same claim that I have been applying universally throughout the discussion. Your sister is no more singled out or insulted than I am when I make a conclusion that was erroneous (a feat I often manage to do). So I ask that you view the remarks with the understanding that they have been universally applied, and that, while I believe your sister to have erred for the aforementioned reasons, I have often done the same on other subjects, and likewise have fallen under that same category. To err is human. Finally, I no more belittle your belief in the Christian God any more than you belittle the belief in any other god. Either there is evidence for Allah, Shiva, Yahweh, and so forth, and hence my claim about "picking out of the hat" is true. Or there is not, and if there is not, then are others who believe in other gods incapable of clear-headed thinking, or simply choosing not to be clear-headed?? This last one I feel is an unfair accusation. Let's apply the same accusation to Christianity. Is there only evidence for one god? In which case, is everyone who believes in a god besides for yours incapable of clear-headed thinking or choosing not to? Or is there evidence for many gods, and you've simply picked yours out of a hat? I am sorry some of these points were offensive in nature. My wording may have come across in a way I did not intend it. But just know that I have only been being consist, as one must be for arguments sake, and it stems not from some belief that I am somehow superior to you or your sister. Determinism: Well let's be clear, I never suggested. Ever. What I do need is deterministic belief. And since I have shown that belief is directly correlated to knowledge (e.g. you know your wife exists) then you need to be able to address and refute this argument in some way, or else you can't invalidate the claim that knowledge is deterministic in nature. Knowledge: I see when getting into knowledge here you are using Descartes dream argument. And I must admit, he raises some interesting points. But I think it's all hog-wash, and that's because in order for everything around us to be not real, one would have to assert that there is something influencing my mind (e.g. a demon, I'm in Matrix, etc.) and that itself would bear the onus of the burden of proof, and violates Occam's razor. So until proof is provided that my senses are being played with, I see Descartes dream as nothing more than semantics. Back to Determinism See, this is where I arrive at the issue of equivocation. When applying the principle of belief, you use a coin. But when I apply the principle of belief, I use god. I know a coin exist. I know it can land on either heads or tails. I know my friends exist. I know they can lie and I know they can tell the truth. Whether this leads to determinism I don't know and quite honestly it's irrelevant to my argument. My argument refers to existential-belief. It has this entire time. And I don't know if god exists. I don't know if he can land on heads or tails. And I don't know if he can lie or tell the truth. Knowledge and belief aren't used interchangeable; I use knowledge and experience interchangeable, although you could extrapolate, as you did, that knowledge and belief are the same thing. That said, I'll concede your point on knowledge and belief. Knowledge informs belief, which becomes knowledge, which inform beliefs, in a sort of repetitive cycle. But I'd still contend that it necessarily leads to universal determinism. The knowledge that I prefer vanilla to chocolate doesn't necessarily demonstrate that I will choose vanilla. Knowledge doesn't have to indicate preference or choice. Is there an argument for universal determinism in the world? Sure. Can determinism leave the illusion of choice? Sure. Do I know if determinism is universal? No, no idea. Do I care either way for the sake of my premise? Absolutely not. @Dr.Goomonkey Hold tight, I'll be right with after I eat. ~JS |
#141
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
So, first and foremost, thank you for the kind words. I knew, intellectually, that you couldn't possibly be intentionally trying to offend. Please know that I continue to esteem you as well.
Quote:
I also said, however, that what I observe more closely matches with what I read in the Bible than it does with anything else I have read. The FSM makes for an easy counter-example here. Nothing about the FSM as creator matches anything I have read or observed. In fact, everything I have read says the FSM is a construct which no one is intented to believe is the actual creator of the universe and was manufactured primarily to mock the Christian God. On the other side, I have the Bible which does a profound job in displaying an understanding of the human condition. So I find it trustworthy when it says, for example "do to others as you would have them do to you." Expanding from that, there are many things in the Bible I have found true and valuable. Therefore, when it talks about God as the inspiration and source of those things I find true and valuable, I listen. This isn't "picking from a hat". It's making an informed decision. Quote:
~Aldin, more of a mint chip guy He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#142
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
@Aldin
@Dr.Goomonkey
I beg both your patience. I will get back to both of you. Just been busy workwise this past month and when I get home just too damned exhausted to think and want to respond. I will have you both a response within the next week. ~JS |
#143
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Well, since this has been somewhat resurrected I figure I should redact my last post a bit. When I said that I saw any individual religion's God as equally likely as JS's 6 Gamblers or the FSM that was primarily an argument for the sake of argument. Naturally I would be much more surprised if I die and find the FSM is real than I would be to find that Yahweh is.
As far as deterministic knowledge without determinism being broad, I don't understand this concept in the slightest. What determines one's actions if not one's knowledge (and beliefs)? (I think this is what Aldin was getting at with the ice cream question.) And as far as beliefs go, how can those be separated from one's life experience? The majority of people I know are the religion they were raised as, or else they had some experience that caused them to move away from that religion. When Aldin says he can believe that a coin will hand on heads or tails, I don't understand this either. I can choose which to say it will land on, but only believe that it landed on one of the two (since I have no reason to believe I have any way to know which it will land on). All this said, I can say one thing about people who have faith: I am a little bit jealous of that. Having that certainty about the universe would save me many an hour of existential bewilderment. Repaints My Maps Online Maps Customs CoN is FuN
Q3C Custom Contests How can you tell which kid at the playground is going to grow up to be a trombone player?
Spoiler Alert!
|
#144
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Wait, I thought you were in the 'everything is predetermined' camp.
How much more certain about the universe could you be? |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FOOD | CAR_95 | General | 1 | March 31st, 2008 10:01 PM |
Pet food recall | bad_calvin | General | 16 | March 23rd, 2007 06:33 PM |
Junk food | monkeyfish | General | 86 | September 28th, 2006 05:20 PM |