Can an Atheist Answer These?

[AnAtheist]

You can destroy the brain but how do you know the mind ceases to exist? Have you ever seen a mind? Or a thought? Or a decision? Where are they located?

By the same means how we know there is a mind. I suppose, you think there is a mind. How so? Have you ever seen one?
We see other people acting like they have a mind similar or identical to our own, which is in action when we act (pls forgive my unprecise words). So if they don’t act like they have mind or they act like they have a different mind now compared to yesterday, it is a safe assumption something has changed with that mind, resp. that it is gone.

Can you turn a good person into an evil person by physical means?

Hm, what is good or bad person? An act committed by a person is good or bad, and that assessment is very often in the eye of the beholder. Depending on how often someone acts goodly or badly, we may judge them as a good or bad person. And yes, physical means like drugs or exposure to brain-washing techniques can change how people act and behave.

Do you believe in free will?

A bit, but generally the Free Will™ is overrated. We are all trapped in what the pagans of old called the Wyrd.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

1.) Why is it that every form of life on this planet has a basic, fundamental desire to avoid death at all costs?

2.) Why does a species want to reproduce?

3.) What is the point of continuing on, of ensuring that the next generation comes into existence? Is it to be remembered? If it is to be remembered, why ?

• For what reason?*
  Why does a species like a virus have the same desire to survive that say, a human, or a sunflower has?

In other words, why does every species of life on earth want to perpetuate itself?

**
1.) Why is it that every form of life on this planet has a basic, fundamental desire to avoid death at all costs?**

You have to remember we now have 3-4 billion years of evolution behind us. Traits that give an animal a reproductive advantage are retained. This is one such trait. I would also add that is a trait that seems odd from the religious stand point. Why do you seek to survive when you believe paradise awaits?
**
2.) Why does a species want to reproduce?**

For the exact same reason, this trait is retained because it gives a reproductive advantage.
**
3.) What is the point of continuing on, of ensuring that the next generation comes into existence? Is it to be remembered? If it is to be remembered, why ?

• For what reason?*
  Why does a species like a virus have the same desire to survive that say, a human, or a sunflower has?**

There is no “point” it is in our very nature, we can’t not do it. All we are is very complex self replicating systems. One individual can not reproduce but the life as a whole can’t not procreate. This is the exact same principle as early self replicating molecules. The instant the molecules formed, due to there very nature, they couldn’t NOT reproduce.

Everything on earth today is just very complex descendants of these molecules

Oh and a virus is not a species, and they are not capable of desire.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

However, homosapiens differ from other species, fundamentally. My proof is this thread. Human ask why and distinguish between what is and what ought to be. If our brains are simply a result of many years of successive levels of evolution, why should we trust that there is any coherence to our “science”. Also, why should we trust scientific theories that are forming by a consciousness that may not be fully evolved. Perhaps we are like Tim Robbins character in the movie “Jacob’s Ladder”; laboring under the delusion of rationality.

Easy because we can see the results.

We practice science because of the MASSIVE benefits it gives is. If you don’t like science then get off you PC, burn you TV, car, cooker, microwave, radio, and go an live in a cave.

Also what on earth does “fully evolved” mean? Things do not “fully evolve”.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Scientific dogmatism rears its head again. By the way, do you believe in cause and effect?

Do you? What caused god?

 

[tonyrey]

                           By the same means how we know there is a mind. I suppose, you think there is a mind. How so? Have you ever seen one?

We know by direct experience that we have a mind. Our thoughts, emotions and decisions - none of which we can see - are evidence enough. We don’t have direct experience of the physical world. We infer that it exists from our perceptions. The primary reality is our intangible mind which - like truth and love and freedom - is not located anywhere.

We see other people acting like they have a mind similar or identical to our own, which is in action when we act (pls forgive my unprecise words). So if they don’t act like they have mind or they act like they have a different mind now compared to yesterday, it is a safe assumption something has changed with that mind, resp. that it is gone.

Then why are people put on trial for what they have done in the past?

Quote:

•                                              Can you turn a good person into an evil person by physical means?                                 *

Hm, what is good or bad person? An act committed by a person is good or bad, and that assessment is very often in the eye of the beholder.

Why not always?

Depending on how often someone acts goodly or badly, we may judge them as a good or bad person.

So if I kill a person only once I am not a bad person?

And yes, physical means like drugs or exposure to brain-washing techniques can change how people act and behave.

Are they still responsible for what they do?

*Do you believe in free will? *
A bit, but generally the Free Will™ is overrated. We are all trapped in what the pagans of old called the Wyrd.

So we do have **some **free will? Does any other form of life have free will?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

So you’re not sure?..

See that’s the beauty of faith. An intelligent person assents to that which all human reasoning and philosophizing cannot touch.

There is a chasm that must be crossed in faith, fully aware that “I can’t understand it with my intellect”.

Oxymoron, oximoron…ox-see-moron…

It’s like: “I’ll have faith when I see the proof.”

Actually an intellectually honest person replies they “don’t know”, when they don’t know. Making things up gets us nowhere.

 

[AnAtheist]

We know by direct experience that we have a mind. Our thoughts, emotions and decisions - none of which we can see - are evidence enough. We don’t have direct experience of the physical world. We infer that it exists from our perceptions. The primary reality is our intangible mind which - like truth and love and freedom - is not located anywhere.

Yes, but we cannot objectively observe ourselves. One cannot observe something without altering it.

Then why are people put on trial for what they have done in the past?

Free Will, good and bad and responsibilty for actions that disturb the society and therefore must be minimised, are different things.

Why not always?

Well, in some cases there is a broad agreement.

So if I kill a person only once I am not a bad person?

 Not necessarily. E.g. being a soldier and having killed a lot does not make you automatically a bad person.

Are they still responsible for what they do? So we do have **some **free will?

Yes they are, regardless of free will or determinism.

Does any other form of life have free will?

Yes.

For all that, the term “free will” needs to be defined properly. If it means the choice between alternatives based on past experiences, there is no contradiction to a purely physical universe. Not even in an hypothetic mechanically deterministic universe.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’ve never seen much reason for the “free will” vs. determinism debate. Most of us assume that we’re able to control our actions, even though “we” in this sense are a set of qualities whose actions could likely be determined by other factors, much like other qualities. If our actions are determined, we can’t change a thing about it. Knowing that we’re limited cannot remove the limitation or change what we are. If we do have free will, whatever that means, then that’s super; we’ve been right all along in punishing people to prevent future evil.

Some argue that it would be unfair for us to punish people if they don’t have free will. Whoever says this obviously hasn’t thought this all the way through. In a world without free will, a judge would be just as determined to perform the act of assigning a punishment to a criminal as the criminal would have been to commit the crime in the first place. The argument conveniently ignores the fact that if determinism is true, all actions are equally determined, and so I can’t be blamed for condemning someone without free will, since I wouldn’t have it myself.

 

[AnAtheist]

Some argue that it would be unfair for us to punish people if they don’t have free will. Whoever says this obviously hasn’t thought this all the way through. In a world without free will, a judge would be just as determined to perform the act of assigning a punishment to a criminal as the criminal would have been to commit the crime in the first place. The argument conveniently ignores the fact that if determinism is true, all actions are equally determined, and so I can’t be blamed for condemning someone without free will, since I wouldn’t have it myself.

Exactly.

 

[gearhead]

Good == being. Good is synonymous with being.

Why? And what do you mean, exactly? Lots of existent things are not good. Lots of non-existent things are theoretically good. The goodness of a thing doesn’t seem to me to be necessarily in proportion with its “being”.

The reason metaphysical evil can’t exist is because good itself is being. So whatever is not good (being) is not being. What is does not have being cannot be an ontological entity. So what I am saying is something that does not exist cannot be an ontological entity.

Only if we accept your initial assertion (i.e. “good = being”) as true. So far, I’ve seen no reason to do so. Frankly, I can’t even see a way to make sense of it to the point where I could even evaluate it as a proposition.

So everything has to act to a good (being) because otherwise this final end wont exist.

Why is “good” (or “being”) the “final end”, and why must that final end, as opposed to some other final end, necessarily exist?

1. Good (being) exists

Okay. I can accept that “good” exists (though how we define “good” gets tricky). I can also accept that “being” exists (since I read this as “existence exists”, which is a tautology and therefore true, even if only trivially so). What I don’t accept is your equivocation of “good” and “being”.

1. What does not have being does not exist.

Fair enough.

1. Good per se must be pure actually because potentialy is is a diffiency of what actually is.

I’m not sure I can sort out the grammar of this statement. Can you re-phrase?

1. Good has to be one, since distinctions would contradict pure actually.

Good has to be one what? And exactly what is being contradicted?

1. Good also needs to be immutable because changes would also contradict pure actually.

The concept of “good”, perhaps. Are you implying that concepts have to exist in some sort of material way?

1. Now space is the changing of something here to something over there. So anything that is actually here and potentially there is not a pure actually. Therefore good exists outside of space making him omnipresent.

Space is not “the changing of something here to something over there.”

Define “outside of space”. Based on the definitions of the terms that I know, the word “outside” implies a spatial, dimensional relationship to something else, but “outside of space”, dimensionality would have no meaning. In my mind, the phrase “outside of space” is about as meaningful as “taller than democracy”.

Also, there’s a contradiction in your statement. On the one hand, you say that pure good exists “outside of space”. Problems with this phrase aside, I assume that you mean that pure good does not exist within space. However, you then go on to say that good is omnipresent, which from the meaning of the word that I know, means that good exists everywhere within space. How can something exist both everywhere and nowhere?

1. Now we know that we have the capacity to know; good being the pure actually will be able to know all that is known by the potentially actually. Therefore good is omniscient.

If I could sort out the grammar of your sentence, I might be able to figure out your point better, but I fail to see how a concept, i.e. goodness, can posess knowledge or awareness.

1. Being potentially actually we are able to do some things logically possible, but good is a pure actually therefore he is able to do everything that is logically possible thus making him omnipotent.

Same problem again: how can a concept posess physical power, let alone infinite power?

1. We know that since good is being as therefore must have always existed otherwise nothing would exist.

We do? You’ll have to show your work on that one.

We know that you exist (via cargito ergo sum) and good exists therefore good is also Eternal.

I can’t make sense of this at all. What bearing does my existence have on the eternal nature of anything?

1. Good(being) exists as a single immutable omnipresent omniscient omnipotent eternal entity. Good(being) is what men call God.

Well, this is mainly just a re-stating of your previous conclusions, and if they were valid (which I don’t think they were, though I dealt with each one already), fair enough, but you’ve added something new here: where does “single” come from?

 

[john_doran]

Some argue that it would be unfair for us to punish people if they don’t have free will. Whoever says this obviously hasn’t thought this all the way through. In a world without free will, a judge would be just as determined to perform the act of assigning a punishment to a criminal as the criminal would have been to commit the crime in the first place. The argument conveniently ignores the fact that if determinism is true, all actions are equally determined, and so I can’t be blamed for condemning someone without free will, since I wouldn’t have it myself.

this is true, but entirely beside the point: the “argument” isn’t some bizarre* modus ponens* of the form “if we’re determined, then we should stop punishing people; we’re determined; therefore we should stop punishing people”.

that determinism entails the absence of legitimate moral evaluation is typically pointed out as a reason to reject determinism and anything that*** entails*** determinism, because people have a deeper (pre-philosophical, anyway) conviction in the reality of moral evaulation than they do propositions such as “nothing exists that is not composed of matter or energy”.

i mean, that’s why atheists and agnostics who still want to believe that there are moral principles that depend on free will try to ground that freedom in the canonical copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanical events that bohr proposed are acausal.

speaking of not having thought things through…

 

[liquidpele]

this is true, but entirely beside the point: the “argument” isn’t some bizarre* modus ponens* of the form “if we’re determined, then we should stop punishing people; we’re determined; therefore we should stop punishing people”.

that determinism entails the absence of legitimate moral evaluation is typically pointed out as a reason to reject determinism and anything that*** entails*** determinism, because people have a deeper (pre-philosophical, anyway) conviction in the reality of moral evaulation than they do propositions such as “nothing exists that is not composed of matter or energy”.

i mean, that’s why atheists and agnostics who still want to believe that there are moral principles that depend on free will try to ground that freedom in the canonical copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanical events that bohr proposed are acausal.

speaking of not having thought things through…

You’re striking down opinions about the source of such things as free will (giving an opinion I’ve never even heard of or believe no less), but miss an important distinction I think. I don’t think many atheists or agnostics would claim they are right, just that they might be - myself and just about any atheist I’ve spoken to would gladly admit they really don’t know. It’s my experience that believers love to strike down atheist opinions because they contain some uncertainty or have not been proven absolutely correct… can you not see the fallacy there? Well, you better hold onto something then, because gravity might stop working at any moment.

 

[tonyrey]

We know by direct experience that we have a mind. Our thoughts, emotions and decisions - none of which we can see - are evidence enough. We don’t have direct experience of the physical world. We infer that it exists from our perceptions. The primary reality is our intangible mind which - like truth and love and freedom - is not located anywhere.

Yes, but we cannot objectively observe ourselves.

Does that mean we are not real? Is our mind less real than the outside world?

Then why are people put on trial for what they have done in the past?
Free Will, good and bad and responsibility for actions that disturb the society and therefore must be minimised, are different things.

Are you denying that we are responsible for our actions?

An act committed by a person is good or bad, and that assessment is very often in the eye of the beholder.
Why not always?
Well, in some cases there is a broad agreement.

Does good or evil depend on broad agreement?

So if I kill a person only once I am not a bad person?
Not necessarily. E.g. being a soldier and having killed a lot does not make you automatically a bad person.

I am referring to ordinary people whose profession does not entail killing people.

Yes they are, regardless of free will or determinism.

How can a person be responsible for what he does if all his actions are determined by past events?

Does any other form of life have free will?
Yes.

Which other forms of life?

For all that, the term “free will” needs to be defined properly. If it means the choice between alternatives based on past experiences, there is no contradiction to a purely physical universe. Not even in an hypothetic mechanically deterministic universe.

Do you regard computers as having free will? If not why not?

 

[tonyrey]

The argument conveniently ignores the fact that if determinism is true, all actions are equally determined, and so I can’t be blamed for condemning someone without free will, since I wouldn’t have it myself.

if determinism is true there is no such thing as good or evil or responsibility or even rationality. If all our thoughts are determined and we have no control over them there is no guarantee that any particular conclusion we reach is true. This means that the theory of determinism may well be false. Since it undermines the universal consensus that we are rational beings and responsible for our behaviour the onus is on the determinist to produce evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that all our thoughts and decisions are the result of factors beyond our control.

 

[gearhead]

if determinism is true there is no such thing as good or evil or responsibility or even rationality. If all our thoughts are determined and we have no control over them there is no guarantee that any particular conclusion we reach is true.

We’re fallible human beings. There’s no guarantee that any particular conclusion we reach is true regardless.

This means that the theory of determinism may well be false.

… but to reach this conclusion, you had to assume that determinism was true.

Since it undermines the universal consensus that we are rational beings and responsible for our behaviour the onus is on the determinist to produce evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that all our thoughts and decisions are the result of factors beyond our control.

I don’t think that consensus is anywhere near “universal”. Personally, I have no idea how to even begin demonstrating that we have actual free will and not merely the illusion of free will.

 

[liquidpele]

I don’t think that consensus is anywhere near “universal”. Personally, I have no idea how to even begin demonstrating that we have actual free will and not merely the illusion of free will.

A fun exercise in this regard… try thinking of something, anything, that is not based in some way on something that you have previously seen, known, experienced, heard, etc. I dare you.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif if determinism is true there is no such thing as good or evil or responsibility or even rationality. If all our thoughts are determined and we have no control over them there is no guarantee that any particular conclusion we reach is true.
We’re fallible human beings. There’s no guarantee that any particular conclusion we reach is true regardless.

The success of science puts paid to that notion very quickly. You seem to have survived pretty well…

                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5649694#post5649694)                 
             *This means that the theory of determinism may well be false.*

… but to reach this conclusion, you had to assume that determinism was true.

How do **you **reach that conclusion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Since it undermines the universal consensus that we are rational beings and responsible for our behaviour the onus is on the determinist to produce evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that all our thoughts and decisions are the result of factors beyond our control.

I don’t think that consensus is anywhere near “universal”. Personally, I have no idea how to even begin demonstrating that we have actual free will and not merely the illusion of free will.

Commit a crime in any country of the world and you’ll soon find out!

 

[tonyrey]

A fun exercise in this regard… try thinking of something, anything, that is not based in some way on something that you have previously seen, known, experienced, heard, etc. I dare you.

How on earth do you think that is related to free will?

 

[liquidpele]

How on earth do you think that is related to free will?

Why do you think it wouldn’t be? Our limitations in thought, memory, and perceptions shape what you call “free will” making it a lot less “free” than I think you believe it is.

 

[Matthias123]

Why? And what do you mean, exactly? Lots of existent things are not good. Lots of non-existent things are theoretically good. The goodness of a thing doesn’t seem to me to be necessarily in proportion with its “being”.

Only if we accept your initial assertion (i.e. “good = being”) as true. So far, I’ve seen no reason to do so. Frankly, I can’t even see a way to make sense of it to the point where I could even evaluate it as a proposition.

Why is “good” (or “being”) the “final end”, and why must that final end, as opposed to some other final end, necessarily exist?

Okay. I can accept that “good” exists (though how we define “good” gets tricky). I can also accept that “being” exists (since I read this as “existence exists”, which is a tautology and therefore true, even if only trivially so). What I don’t accept is your equivocation of “good” and “being”.

Fair enough.

I’m not sure I can sort out the grammar of this statement. Can you re-phrase?

Good has to be one what? And exactly what is being contradicted?

The concept of “good”, perhaps. Are you implying that concepts have to exist in some sort of material way?

Space is not “the changing of something here to something over there.”

Define “outside of space”. Based on the definitions of the terms that I know, the word “outside” implies a spatial, dimensional relationship to something else, but “outside of space”, dimensionality would have no meaning. In my mind, the phrase “outside of space” is about as meaningful as “taller than democracy”.

Also, there’s a contradiction in your statement. On the one hand, you say that pure good exists “outside of space”. Problems with this phrase aside, I assume that you mean that pure good does not exist within space. However, you then go on to say that good is omnipresent, which from the meaning of the word that I know, means that good exists everywhere within space. How can something exist both everywhere and nowhere?

If I could sort out the grammar of your sentence, I might be able to figure out your point better, but I fail to see how a concept, i.e. goodness, can posess knowledge or awareness.

Same problem again: how can a concept posess physical power, let alone infinite power?

We do? You’ll have to show your work on that one.

I can’t make sense of this at all. What bearing does my existence have on the eternal nature of anything?

Well, this is mainly just a re-stating of your previous conclusions, and if they were valid (which I don’t think they were, though I dealt with each one already), fair enough, but you’ve added something new here: where does “single” come from?

The argument will work if I just replaced good with being, because I believe they are the same thing.

So let’s start at the beginning:

How would you define “being”?

I define it as a composite of the act of existing and essence. Act of existing (that it is) and essence (what it is).