Free will? I dont think so

[Gorgias]

That is ridiculous. You accept the claims without questioning them

That is ridiculous. How do you know that I “accept the claims without questioning them”? How do you know that I didn’t go through a rigorous process of considering them and finally arrive at the conclusion that I find them to be true?

Heck, I could make the same claim about you: “Jupp, you accept the claims of atheism without questioning them, and THEREFORE you consider them sufficiently substantiated”!

(See how ridiculous that claim is? )

On the other hand, I can see why you would make such an outlandish claim: since you, yourself, have rejected the claims (with whatever you consider to have been sufficient reflection on your part), you cannot conceive of the notion that another person may have looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion. It’s all “confirmation bias” and “unquestioning acceptance”, in your mind. After all… you, yourself, couldn’t possibly be wrong… right?

And before you object to the expression of hearsay, it is you who assert that there can be no hard evidence in the antiquity. So stick with it.

“No hard evidence” =/= “hearsay”.

“Hearsay” is one of those nice terms folks tend to throw around when what they really mean is “I disagree with the veracity of your evidence.” It’s ok… we get it.

We might get into an interesting discussion of the various contexts in which “hearsay” is relevant and which it is not (which isn’t even to mention that, in courts of law – which seem to be your context here – there are exceptions in which even ‘hearsay’ is admissible!).

There is no hard evidence from the ancient times, so all you have is hearsay.

Invalid conclusion.

What you are “guilty of” is being mistaken, which is not a “lie”. Savvy?

Oh, I get what you’re saying. You’re just missing my point. You’re telling yourself the ‘lies’ that “it’s all hearsay” and “it’s all confirmation bias” and “it’s all unquestioning acceptance”. That’s ok. You don’t need to admit it.

 

[Gorgias]

Can you then explain why the gospels were written in Greek, but Jesus spoke Aramaic?

Because they were being used in liturgy throughout the Church, well beyond the boundaries where Aramaic was spoken and well within the boundaries where Koine Greek was the lingua franca, dontcha think?

Can you explain why some of the Greek phrases used by Jesus, especially in John, have no corresponding phraseology in Aramaic, meaning they MUST have been made up?

You’ve a rather narrow view of how to write a book. If I’m writing an original text in a target language that’s different from the language spoken by the characters, then necessarily I’m going to write it in the target language and using that language’s modes of expression.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Gospels are merely word-for-word translations from the Aramaic. (They’re not. Nor does that change their value or accuracy.)

Says who? God has NEVER shared anything. He never communicates directly. He always uses proxies.

Jesus was a ‘proxy’, eh? Nice try.

And since when did God via his proxies promote his omniscience AND our free will? I’m sure some form of this is claimed in the Bible - I would like to know where to analyze it.

I’m tempted to respond “do your own homework, friend”. After all, you’ve claimed that you do know what the Church teaches (although you constantly horrendously mischaracterize / misunderstand it!).

are you saying I should accept his assertion just because it is found in the Bible?

Nope. I’m saying that, once you come to accept that the Bible is the Word of God, then you accept the assertions within.

 

[rdj69]

Nature and essence has been outmoded by chemistry. Act and potency has been outmoded by physics. These are just better, more observable, quantifiable ways to describe the universe.

Is it “better” to describe this liquid I’m drinking as H2O than it is to describe it as water?

Better is a subjective value judgement; it depends entirely on one’s goals.

Physics is better than metaphysics for accomplishing a specific set of goals, but that does not make it objectively better, and it does not make metaphysics incorrect or irrelevant - any more than describing water as H2O makes describing it as water incorrect or irrelevant.

 

[rdj69]

Atheism has no positive claims. And as such there is nothing to substantiate.

This is a tired fallacy.

If theism is the positive claim that “God exists”, then atheism is the positive claim that “God does not exist”. If you want to assert that atheism doesn’t make a positive claim, you must also yield that theism doesn’t make a positive claim.

If it is not true that God exists, then it is true that God does not exist. There is no third option that allows you to avoid taking responsibility for defending your intellectual position.

 

[Veritas6]

Time has moved on. Nature and essence has been outmoded by chemistry. Act and potency has been outmoded by physics. These are just better, more observable, quantifiable ways to describe the universe.

This stuff is history, not current affairs.

Friend, please don’t insult my intelligence just because you have no idea what you’re talking about. Chemistry and physics cannot “outmode” anything in philosophy, and your insistence that it does shows your vincible ignorance on this subject.

Until you’re willing to learn anything more on philosophy please stop insisting I’m wrong based on your uneducated opinions.

 

[rdj69]

Too bad that you don’t understand atheism. There are several “flavors” of it.

No, there aren’t. The term “atheism” has only one legitimate definition, because it is entirely dependent on the definition of “theism”. I’m well-aware of the ridiculous lengths atheists have gone to in order to try to avoid taking responsibility for their claims; none of it is legitimate or logical. I was an atheist for most of my life and only became Catholic last year, so I’m intimately familiar with the “culture” of atheism.

atheism is the LACK of belief of anything supernatural

To lack belief in the existence of X is to believe that X does not exist. This isn’t complicated; something either exists or it doesn’t - there is no third option.

 

[Gorgias]

You accept the claims about your deity without hard evidence

Fair enough. You accept the claims of the non-existence of God without hard evidence. We’re playing the same game, then.

reject the claims of other religions on the same grounds.

No. I reject the claims of other religions based not on their claims, but on their divergence from claims that I accept. Think of it this way: if I claimed that the moon was made of green cheese, would you reject that claim on the basis that I don’t have hard evidence? Or would you reject it because you accept the evidence that its composition is otherwise? Your assertion here is that theists reject others’ claims only because they cannot show ‘green cheese’. That’s not true. We reject them because we accept claims that say ‘not green cheese.’

Subtle difference, but important. Perhaps you might ponder the nuance.

Atheism has no positive claims. And as such there is nothing to substantiate.

Nice. Try.

You positively claim the non-existence of God, do you not? You positively claim the non-existence of non-physical reality, do you not? What is your substantiation of these claims?

Sure, “you cannot prove a negative.” But, if that’s the case, the best you can say is “ya’ll cannot prove that there is a God”. Is that your claim, though? Merely that we can’t prove it? Or do you actually claim He doesn’t exist?

Of course they are the same. I am not surprised any more. Magnanimity does not understand “information” and “primary”, you don’t understand “hearsay”.

Yep. There we go. You’re “bright”, we’re “dim”. Got it.

Looks like you don’t understand the word “lie” either.

Sure. And I’m sooooo glad that we’ve got you here to explain concepts that we cannot understand! What would we do without you?!?!?!?!?

Too bad that you don’t understand atheism. There are several “flavors” of it.

Too bad you don’t understand your own claims.

And I do not believe in anything “supernatural”, because the concept of “supernatural” is incoherent.

Great. So… your claim is “the supernatural does not exist.” Right? OK, then… prove that positive claim. Go ahead. I’ll wait. (And use small words, so that I can understand. )

rdj69:

If it is not true that God exists, then it is true that God does not exist.

Nice tautology.

Wow. Logic much?

If (God exists) == ~TRUE, then…
~(God exists) == ~(~TRUE) ==> ~(God exists) == TRUE.

So much for the ‘brights’.

 

[rdj69]

Close but no cigar. There can be NO hard evidence that some yellow-pink polka dot unicorns do NOT exist.

This is another tired fallacy; “you can’t prove a negative.”

I’m glad that you seem to have an interest in philosophy and logic, but your understanding of these things is inaccurate and sophomoric. I don’t mean that as an insult, you just need to keep learning in order to correct your misunderstandings.

You certainly can prove a negative. If I claim that there is not a tiger in my bathroom, and you ask me to prove it, I simply need to bring you into my bathroom so that you can see there isn’t a tiger there.

And you have no hard evidence for your belief.

What are you referring to with the term “hard evidence”?

 

[Gorgias]

Close but no cigar. There can be NO hard evidence that some yellow-pink polka dot unicorns do NOT exist. And yet I don’t believe in their existence due to the LACK of hard evidence.

Nice try. Let’s ask the question: “do you believe in the existence of yellow-pink polka dot unicorns?”

And you have no hard evidence for your belief. And they do not have hard evidence for THEIR belief. SSDD.

Again, we have to discuss what “hard evidence” is and why it’s reasonable. We can have sufficient reason to reach a conclusion, even in the absence of what you construe to be “hard evidence.” You seem to be tone deaf to that reality, though.

(And so, it’s really D DD. )

You both stated your lack of understanding. All I had to do is accept YOUR claim.

You could keep your ignorance.

And you may keep your hubris and superiority complex. Hope that works well for you, friend!

Yes, tautology.

You might want to re-read your logic texts. You’re mischaracterizing what a ‘tautology’ is.

“(A = B) or (A =/= B)” is a tautology.

“~(~X) ==> X” is not.

But hey… who am I to tell you that you lack understanding?

 

[Gorgias]

Except the tiger is invisible.

You realize that you just made a positive claim that there is a tiger, but it’s invisible… right?

 

[rdj69]

Except the tiger is invisible.

Tigers, by definition, are not invisible.

Obviously it’s possible to give a definition of something which makes it impossible to be proven false - something “unfalsifiable”.

So what you’re implying is that the God of Christianity is unfalsifiable, which is a positive claim, which you need to provide an actual argument for.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Freddy:

So determinism is true. And decisions, if not arbitrary, are based on reasons that depend on that which has gone before. And you are obviously, by definition, making a decision. But that’s not the equivalent of having free will.

Very well and concisely put.

Do you believe in the justice system? Is anyone ever guilty?

Do you deny all human responsibility?

Are you going to let your understanding of physics and cosmology be assumed to be correct and prevent you from preparing for eventual death and all that comes afterwards?

 

[Gorgias]

atqhT

I don’t.

Great. That’s a positive statement: “I do not believe in the existence of yellow-pink polka dot unicorns.” Please substantiate it.

Gorgias:

Again, we have to discuss what “hard evidence” is and why it’s reasonable

Hard evidence does not need an a-priori acceptance. It can convince skeptics. There is a difference between “logically correct” and “logically sound” arguments.

OK… that’s non-responsive…

 

[EndTimes]

God? Or maybe nothing? Or…maybe everything in a great big ole statistical crap shoot.

God…

It’s perfectly fine to claim that Free Will does not exist…

The next task for any who posit that notion - is to PROVE IT! …

)

 

[Freddy]

…the claim is that those who acted as ‘historians’ in illiterate societies did so through the use of well-honed memories. Not everyone (which is what you just addressed).

So you weren’t (as you implied) saying that this was a general ability. But that there were specific people who were adept at remembering exactly what people said and these people at various times took turn in following Jesus around everywhere He went to memorise everything He said exactly as He said it (plus everyone’s responses to Him) in order to save it for sometime decades down the track just in case someone else wanted a transcribe a record of it. Not sure who was organising all this but gee, busy guys!

And they obviously advertised this ability and the fact that they had memorised all He had to say over a period of years so that if someone did want to write about it they’d know who to contact. Assuming they were still alive.

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense…

 

[Freddy]

If it is not true that God exists, then it is true that God does not exist. There is no third option that allows you to avoid taking responsibility for defending your intellectual position.

There isn’t? I’m not sure you’ve been long involved in these types of discussions if you think that. The third option is not one I’ve seen by any Christian, but most atheists take it (even Dawkins if you want an example).

Edit: just noticed you joined two days ago, so probably have not had much chance to discover ‘the third way’. At least not here, anyway.

 

[Freddy]

Jupp:

That is ridiculous. You accept the claims without questioning them

How do you know that I didn’t go through a rigorous process of considering them and finally arrive at the conclusion that I find them to be true?

You can tell us I guess. But also tell us if you started with a belief in God before you did this rigorous process or did that follow on once you’d concluded the claims to be true?

 

[Freddy]

In other words, even if one assumes we have “free will”, what is the mechanism BEHIND making a “choice”? We can define what a choice is, but no matter how you slice it, it will STILL be just flipping a coin. How is that free will?

No matter how you look at it, I can;t see how free will is real.

So here is an interesting question - one I am still thinking about - if there is no free will, WHY do we think we have it? Why is there the illusion of free will? What evolutionary benefit would it have? If there is no free will, it doesn’t matter if I think there is or not, I will do the same thing. So WHY is there such an illusion? This is not an easy philosophical problem.

The mechanism is the external world. We cannot make any decision without some (name removed by moderator)ut from ‘out there’. Otherwise there is stasis. You react to whatever you experience. This is so obvious to me as to need no further explanation. It’s a priori. But we are still talking of making a decision. Which is not the equivalent of making a choice.

The decision you make can only be in response to (name removed by moderator)ut. It cannot be any other way. So it is based on (name removed by moderator)ut. Same (name removed by moderator)ut, same decision. Different (name removed by moderator)ut, different decision.

If we makes a decision then we must be able to explain the reason behind it. Else it’s an arbitraray decision. So we are commited to a course. I used the example of a juror earlier. Is it conceivable that one could change one’s decision on a case given exactly the same information? But that’s what proponents of free will claim. That we aren’t governed by the (name removed by moderator)ut. By our experience.

 

[Freddy]

And in response to why we think we have it it…it’s nothing but an automatic response. No different to the natural instincts with which we are born.

Yet we have reached a point where we think that we are more than an animal. That we have choices we can make. That we don’t respond simply to external stimulii. We think more of ourselves than that! We are special!

We are an accident of the evolutionary process. Barely out of the trees. I really wish more people could understand that and adjust their thought processes accordingly.

 

[Gorgias]

I am talking about my personal lack of a personal belief - or lack of it. I guess you can’t understand the difference between “there is no yellow-pink polka dotted unicorn” and “I DO NOT believe in the existence of such an entity”.

I see. So, what you’re saying is that there could be yellow-pink polka dot unicorns! Got it!

Personal beliefs or lack of them do not have to be substantiated.

Hang on a second, though! Now who’s being irrational?!? Hasn’t your whole train of thought here been all about theists’ lack of ability to substantiate their belief that God exists? Hasn’t your whole screed been on how we can’t provide evidence for our belief in the spiritual realm? And yet, when the shoe’s on the other foot… you claim that it is not necessary for you to substantiate your beliefs!

Yep… I think we’ve finally isolated where the inconsistency and irrationality in this debate is located…

But that there were specific people who were adept at remembering exactly what people said and these people at various times took turn in following Jesus around everywhere He went to memorise everything He said exactly as He said it (plus everyone’s responses to Him) in order to save it for sometime decades down the track just in case someone else wanted a transcribe a record of it. Not sure who was organising all this but gee, busy guys!

So, to sum up: first, you argue against an assertion that I didn’t make, and then, when you don’t have an argument against the assertion I did make, you simply ridicule it. That’s one approach, I guess…

And they obviously advertised this ability and the fact that they had memorised all He had to say over a period of years so that if someone did want to write about it they’d know who to contact. Assuming they were still alive.

And they obviously advertised this ability and the fact that they had memorised all He had to say over a period of years so that if someone did want to write about it they’d know who to contact. Assuming they were still alive.

You realize that they were constantly telling these stories, right? It’s not like, in the year 55, all of a sudden, scrolls appeared and people started hearing these stories for the first time! No… the reason that the Gospels were chosen as such is because they had been being used in the liturgies of the Church since Pentecost !!