Several questions

[Think_About_It]

you claimed that i said this

Click the little arrow by your name to see where you said this.

“accounted for” in this context means that the causal factors that ultimately result in these free will events being expressed , must be present in the starting state of the system.

This is what you do. You deny having said things, and when your being argued down, you twist your argument into something else, changing what you actually meant or adding in elements without explanation. This is why I can’t have a discussion with you. You’d rather dupe people into your position through convolutions in argument, then persuade them by reason. That’s enough for me, Pete.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Click the little arrow by your name to see where you said this.

this just goes back a post to #39, just cut and paste the evidence and post number, if you have any.

This is what you do. You deny having said things, and when your being argued down, you twist your argument into something else, changing what you actually meant or adding in elements without explanation. This is why I can’t have a discussion with you. You’d rather dupe people into your position through convolutions in argument, then persuade them by reason. That’s enough for me, Pete.

please, feel free to post any evidence you have of these allegations.

mean while, since i took the time to make a syllogism, please respond to the actual argument in post #32

 

[Think_About_It]

this just goes back a post to #39, just cut and paste the evidence and post number, if you have any

You are not bright, Pete. Click the second arrow on the page by your name under my comment. It will link you to post #24, where your “accounted for” quote was taken from…

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Long story short, I’m a troubled theist who has come face to face with some of the bigger, philosophical complexities of faith, and I have a lot of very intelligent, atheist friends. Some of their objections have shaken me to the core, and, I’ll admit it, I’m scared of where the truth might lead me. I have been told by my priest that doubts are normal, but, I can’t help but feel as though I’d be lying to myself and to God if I didn’t pursue the truth, wherever it leads me. So, please, I beg you, help me combat the onslaught of atheism in my life. I apologize if I’m packing too much into 1 post, but, its kind of urgent and I couldn’t really find any topics that sufficiently dealth with the topics I’m wondering about.

1. I often wondered what would happen if we put Christian monks who arerelatively skilled in prayer under mental examination. Well, it turns out that we have and there is nothing special going on. All that happened was increased activity in the frontal lobe, decreased awareness in the orientation-sector of the brain. The same thing happened with Buddhist monks. There was no mental difference in the cognitive effects of Buddhist and Christian meditation. What bugs me is this; if all spiritual experience can be explained away scientifically and psychologically, where does the soul fit in? If human consciousness can be explained in purely material terms, where, I ask you, does God come into play?
2. Going along with the first point, if the human mind is nothing more than a random cluster of chemical reactions and neural tissue, is there free will? My friends have all denied the existence of free will based on the fact that we are compelled by the synapses occurring in our brain to act as we do. We really have no choice in the matter, and we are merely under the illusion of control. Many philosophers seem to agree with this. My friends claim to have the backing of science on this point. Are they wrong? If so, on what scientific and philosophical grounds can I refute their argument?
3. I’ve been hearing alot about quantum theory and how it eliminates the neccessity of God for a functioning universe. For those of you who know this kind of stuff, is this true? Has quantum theory shoved God out of the picture?
4. A good refutation of Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” would be appreciated, though, not as neccessary or urgent as the other points.

Thank you in advance to all of you who respond.

As someone who has had quite a number of “spiritual experiences”, your atheist friends are wrong. The trouble with science, and philosophy for example, is that it doesn’t cover personal experience.

My first Protestant pastor was an outstanding if discouraging man. He was also prophetic.

He sat in his office sometime around 1991 (he died in 1992) and made several predictions. Included were -

1. I’d become a Catholic (I did in 1997).
2. My sister would die relatively young from leukemia (died aged 45 in 2005).
3. His eldest son would have a major health setback, shortening his life (he had a stroke in 1996 or 97, and while he is still alive, his health has been badly affected).
4. There’d be a second Gulf War with some details. (Happened in 2003).
5. There’d be a conspiracy against me and I’d lose my job. (Happened in 1995).
6. That a certain evil, ratbag pastor would take over his church after he died and “wreck it”. He did just that.
7. That I’d “be doing cleaning for a short time, mainly because the Lord would just want me to ‘hear about a ghost’.” Even to me that sounded silly and I knew how accurate he was. But in 2006, I was doing cleaning for about 4 months (a short time) and heard about a ‘ghost’ (a suicide) in a certain building in Ipswich. I think my role was to get a mass said for him.

There were other things.

The reason the old pastor could make these sorts of predictions so accurately was because God was telling him. There was no prior reason, at the time he made them, to have any reason they would come true.

There’s no way he could know about the last for example, by his own natural unaided reason.

And we are judged for our actions, when we choose what action we’ll take. The atheists are atheists by their own choice.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are not bright, Pete.

Click the second arrow on the page by your name under my comment. It will link you to post #24, where your “accounted for” quote was taken from…

i just did what you said. im not a mind reader.

considering that ive already qouted from that post #24, in my post #39, maybe you shouldnt cast these kind of aspersions.

i dont see anywhere that i said this.

P1: Events in a deterministic system have a cause in order to begin.
C1: Therefore, a Designer is that cause.

here is the entire text of post #24

Quote:
Originally Posted by Think About It
What do you mean “free will events.” Why “accounted for”?

a ‘free will event’ in this context, is either making or seeming to make a free will decision.

“accounted for” in this context means that the causal factors that ultimately result in these free will events being expressed , must be present in the starting state of the system.

Quote:
Hmm. I wouldn’t venture a guess as far as that. “Written” implies a writer; I don’t think I could ever suppose that, based soley on the fact that there is something rather than nothing. It’s really beyond my investigative powers (and anyones, if you ask me).

if it were written, that would indeed imply a writer, and that is the problem im trying to point out. people arguing that free will is an illusion, are inadvertantly making a strong implication of design.

however, i dont agree that it is beyond investigatory powers. the history of science and mathematics shows there is very little beyond our investigatory powers, our limit only seems to be what our state of knowledge is at any given time. that limit constantly changes so when people talk about things violating some part of our scientific understanding as though that makes them somehow more implausible, what they really mean is that it violates our current understanding of science.

a reasonable man allows that our current understanding of science isnt any more complete than it was a few centuries ago and therefore isnt a good standard of what is possible or impossible… remember, everytime we fire up a particle accelerator, we fundamentally change our understanding of the nature of the universe. at any time we could have a complete sea change in our understanding of reality.

Quote:
Parsimony really has nothing to do with it.

when i say parsimonious, im talking about Ockhams Razor

Quote:
Occam’s razor (or Ockham’s razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham.

the simplest explanation isnt that free will is an illusion, for the reasons i specified, but rather that we simply have free will.

Quote:
The degree to which our behaviour is predictable is the degree to which we don’t have free will, but rather our actions are caused by other things.

our behavior is predictable to others because we assume others have rational motivations, similar to ours, if they dont, we call those people crazy. they are unpredictable, and that usually unnerves other people.

yet if we think about it, we realize that free will is not restricted by what may be the rational choice in any situation, but that there is no restriction on free will at all.

suppose someone was trying to shoot me. i could be reasonable, and duck, i could be brave and charge my assailant, or i could be irrational and and plan a birthday party amid the gunfire.

as long as i am willing to accept the consequence for my free will action, then there are no restrictions on my free will.

suppose i were strapped down under the same conditions. the ontological status of my free will doesnt change when i am prevented from carryingout a duck, charge or party planning. i can still make those decisions, i just cant enact them. it may make free will a moot point, but it doesnt make free will disappear.

Quote:
Furthermore, the only reason we can’t predict everything isn’t because everything is random, but for the simple matter that we don’t have the cognitive faculties to do so.

i dont think everything is random either.

i dont see the premise, or conclusion that you say i am making, anywhere in this.

P1: Events in a deterministic system have a cause in order to begin.
C1: Therefore, a Designer is that cause.

this is such a simple thing to prove, just bold the part you are talking about.

i will be happy to apologize if i am wrong.

 

[Think_About_It]

I thought you meant you didn’t say this quote below. My synopsis of your argument clearly says the same thing as yours, but in a simpler way.

Starting with your quote: ““accounted for” in this context means that the causal factors that ultimately result in these free will events being expressed, must be present in the starting state of the system.”

My comments—parallels—in bold:

P1. all free will events **(which I’ve called “events”) **must be accounted for (must have the causal factors present – I said “have a cause”) in the starting state (I said, in order to begin; take place) of a deterministic system.

therefore

C1. the starting state of the system must be designed (designed implies a designer - I said, “Therefore, a Designer”) to create all predetermined free will events (i.e., to cause the events)

My simplification of your argument demonstrates this

P1: Events in a deterministic system have a cause in order to begin.
C1: Therefore, a Designer is that cause.

You just don’t like my phrasing of it because it draws attention to the fact that your conclusion is non sequitur…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I thought you meant you didn’t say this quote below. My synopsis of your argument clearly says the same thing as yours, but in a simpler way.

Starting with your quote: ““accounted for” in this context means that the causal factors that ultimately result in these free will events being expressed, must be present in the starting state of the system.”

My comments—parallels—in bold:

P1. all free will events **(which I’ve called “events”) **must be accounted for (must have the causal factors present – I said “have a cause”) in the starting state (I said, in order to begin; take place) of a deterministic system.

therefore

C1. the starting state of the system must be designed (designed implies a designer - I said, “Therefore, a Designer”) to create all predetermined free will events (i.e., to cause the events)

My simplification of your argument demonstrates this

P1: Events in a deterministic system have a cause in order to begin.
C1: Therefore, a Designer is that cause.

You just don’t like my phrasing of it because it draws attention to the fact that your conclusion is non sequitur…

i meant exactly what ‘I’ said. not what you paraphrased. you created, intentionally or not, a straw man that you proceeded to knock down. instead of the actual argument i made.

for instance, you drew the phrase “Therefore, a Designer” when i only said that it must be designed. while that is the implication, because it is only an implication. i did not include it in the argument. you seem intent on the idea that i am making a case for G-d, i am not. i am only pointing out the implication of your argument. i use entirely different arguments when i make the case for G-d, namely the contingency argument.

where you say, “in order to begin”. i said must be present in the starting state. you construed this as saying that the system must have had a start. which is definitely not the argument i made, if i had i would have qouted BGV theory.

when you paraphrased my argument to what you thought i meant as opposed to what i had posted, you changed the meaning of my argument. this is why i called it a strawman.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

now that this is settled, please address the actual argument i made in post #32.

 

[Think_About_It]

i only said that it must be designed.

That something is designed is to say that something has a designer. There’s no conceivable way that you’re not making an argument for the existence of God. Here, I’ve amended the argument…

P1: Events in a deterministic system must have a cause present at the starting state.
C1: Therefore, a Designer is that cause.

And you still haven’t explained how it isn’t non sequitur.

 

[tonyrey]

Why use the possessive if there are only bodies?

Hardly a justification for your assumption that we=bodies.

Do you really believe our intellectual development has occurred solely on account of its survival value? How do you explain the fact that we are now more likely to destroy not only ourselves but all other life on this planet?

complacency, lack of understanding

But according to you our intellectual development should overcome complacency and lack of understanding because it has occurred precisely for its survival value…

Our abstracting and drawing on universal principles (through scientific endevours) have increased our life span greatly. That’s survival…

The history of the human race reveals an increased power of destruction and an enormous loss of human and animal life due to our intellectual development. Is that survival?

The thoughts occur within the brain, they are caused by both biology and environment. If not the brain, where are the thoughts taking place?

Why do they have to “take place” somewhere? Where are truth and purpose located? In your brain? Your physicalist assumptions distort your interpretation of reality.

You have a brain, and you think with it - that’s awareness.

What evidence is there that awareness and self-awareness are located in the brain? Can they be observed?

If we can think about the ways to improve our thinking, we can achieve higher level abstractions and come to know better universal principles, which I’ve demonstrated, lead to greater survival

And even greater destruction! Can you explain how we have succeeded in thinking about thinking?

Not sure what you’re trying to say in the first part.

You believe rational beings have emerged from irrational processes. How?

I make important life decisions based on logic. I can’t base decisions on the fact that things happen physically. You’re grasping at straws here.

If your important life decisions are based s**olely **on logic you’re a drowning man grasping at thin air!

Again, you’ll have to explain what you mean.

Do we imagine that we have a capacity for enjoyment? Is it a concept or a fact?

But monocells have outlived every other form of life and survived far longer than human beings - with every prospect of continuing to do so. Complexity is a disadvantage for survival. Organisms need not have become more complex if they existed solely to survive…

Other organisms have adapted differently. it’s those cognitive traits we call complex that help us survive; it’s not as if complexity itself were a benefit.

But you believe an increase in complexity has enabled us to survive longer than simple organisms - in spite of evidence to the contrary from the history of the human race and other forms of life.

The legal system is based on ideas of justice, all of which have their invention at humanity’s fingertips (as we have discussed). I said we value it because people fancy the idea and you rebut by telling me “but it is the basis of the legal system!” (in other words, it’s what people fancy for justice). You haven’t said anything different than I have, in this regard, you just think there should be another cause for that fancy whereas I do not.

The truth is that you fancy the idea that the rest of the world fancies the idea of justice! The difference between us is that you are the odd man out. That doesn’t prove you are mistaken, of course, but the onus is on you to justify your contempt for the consensus of civilised human beings…

What do you mean by “meaning emerged,”?

Where did meaning come from? Do you think “meaning” is also a fancy? If so all your statements are meaningless (and everyone else’s of course!).

I don’t think I have rejected rights to live. We value life as well as rights to safeguard it. There’s no contradiction here. We only value rights to a life because we value life. Do I think we have any intrinsic right to live? I can’t see how that could be demonstrated…

In other words you think we only fancy rights exist and life is valuable. The fact that you can’t see how the intrinsic right to life can be demonstrated doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The very fact that you make that statement suggests that you have an open mind - which is to be commended - as does your “I don’t think I have rejected rights to live”.

On the other you obviously value life because you are happy to experience it. Is your evaluation arbitrary?

No.

If your evaluation of life is not arbitrary there must be an objective reason on which it is based - the fact that it is a source of happiness.

You reach the right conclusion for the wrong reason! We exist in order to enjoy ourselves but enjoyment is not an arbitrary figment of the imagination and it is not confined to one person. It is an incontestable fact about all advanced forms of life.

So what are you getting at? You’ve always got this lead up without a conclusion.
You’re more outrage than argument; you search for gaps in scientific understanding to insert a higher power or supernatural explanation. This isn’t an effective argumentative strategy nor is it persuasive. Your lack of understanding about why things are the way they are isn’t a good jumping off point for reasonable faith.

There is no outrage, higher power or supernatural explanation in the points I have made. It is not my lack of understanding that is evident but yours… If you attempt to answer my questions and accept your inability to answer them you will realise that it is your blind faith in science that is unreasonable…

 

[Think_About_It]

Hardly a justification for your assumption that we=bodies.

I can say that we are bodies. It’s your assumption that we are more than. You have to provide evidence for that claim

But according to you our intellectual development should overcome complacency and lack of understanding because it has occurred precisely for its survival value…

The system is efficient, not perfect. I might be inclined to say that if God were perfect, he would create a perfect system - one not capable of foil and sin

The history of the human race reveals an increased power of destruction and an enormous loss of human and animal life due to our intellectual development. Is that survival?

The system is efficient, not perfect

Why do they have to “take place” somewhere? Where are truth and purpose located? In your brain? Your physicalist assumptions distort your interpretation of reality.

So they take place nowhere?

What evidence is there that awareness and self-awareness are located in the brain? Can they be observed?

Because you can’t be aware without one. It’s a reaonsable connection to make.

And even greater destruction! Can you explain how we have succeeded in thinking about thinking?

"How" in what way?

You believe rational beings have emerged from irrational processes. How?

What do you mean by "rational beings"

If your important life decisions are based s**olely **on logic you’re a drowning man grasping at thin air!

Not really sure what your trying to say here

Do we imagine that we have a capacity for enjoyment? Is it a concept or a fact?

We have the capacity to enjoy things subjectively. The things we like, we call enjoyment. We can say that a cell enjoys being nourished, but all we really mean is that it is experincing a credit to its survival or something that is potentially or instrumental to our survival. So it is with people…

But you believe an increase in complexity has enabled us to survive longer than simple organisms - in spite of evidence to the contrary from the history of the human race and other forms of life.

Increased complexity, I’m saying, has enabled us to survive longer than we used to (with lesser complexity). Forget the other organisms for now.

The truth is that you fancy the idea that the rest of the world fancies the idea of justice! The difference between us is that you are the odd man out. That doesn’t prove you are mistaken, of course, but the onus is on you to justify your contempt for the consensus of civilised human beings…

What contempt? My values aren’t divergent, for the most part, from what people have defined as justice

Where did meaning come from? Do you think “meaning” is also a fancy? If so all your statements are meaningless (and everyone else’s of course!).

I suppose they are. Depends, really, what you mean by meaning. If by meaning, you are saying things lead to a greater or ultimate good, I disagree that they do. If by meaning, you are saying that we ascribe certain emotions or delineate things a certain way as per our ‘fancy,’ then I agree that we do and can and should.

In other words you think we only fancy rights exist and life is valuable. The fact that you can’t see how the intrinsic right to life can be demonstrated doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

You’re welcome to provide an argument

If your evaluation of life is not arbitrary there must be an objective reason on which it is based - the fact that it is a source of happiness.

My evaluation is arbitrary in the scheme of things. Here one day, gone the next.

There is no outrage, higher power or supernatural explanation in the points I have made. It is not my lack of understanding that is evident but yours… If you attempt to answer my questions and accept your inability to answer them you will realise that it is your blind faith in science that is unreasonable…

I hear you, but I also know from what angle you speak. I answer many of your questions (and there are MANY of them). My inability to explain alternatives to your philosophy are testaments to gaps in the current knowledge of the natural world. That doesn’t mean they are wrong; they’re educated guesses based on what I can see around me. What I can’t answer, may not have an answer. It would be like asking “why is up not down? you must provide an explanation for it!”

My job is not to give a survey of why everything is the way it is. It is the way it is and I am living in the natural world. I am perfectly within reason to form my judements based entirely within it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

.

lets cut to the chase.

here is the argument i made. no paraphrasing is necessary.

P1. all free will events must be accounted for in the starting state of a deterministic system

therefore

C1. the starting state of the system must be designed to create all predetermined free will events

surely we can agree to P1. it may be more accurate to say that all free will events must be accounted for in all states prior to their actualization. but that seems to be the heart of determinism by definition.

answers.com/topic/determinism

de·ter·min·ism (dĭ-tûr’mə-nĭz’əm)

n.
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

the problem is with C2.

C1. the starting state of the system must be designed to create all predetermined free will events

i say it must be designed, because if it is a random event, then the system is random and not deterministic.

further, if we are too call it a random cause that resulted in a deterministic system, then all those trillions of free will events per hour are just happy accidents that mysteriously work out every time. like magic.

and i dont believe in magic.

do you have an alternative?

 

[Think_About_It]

lets cut to the chase.

here is the argument i made. no paraphrasing is necessary.

surely we can agree to P1. it may be more accurate to say that all free will events must be accounted for in all states prior to their actualization. but that seems to be the heart of determinism by definition.

answers.com/topic/determinism

the problem is with C2.

i say it must be designed, because if it is a random event, then the system is random and not deterministic.

further, if we are too call it a random cause that resulted in a deterministic system, then all those trillions of free will events per hour are just happy accidents that mysteriously work out every time. like magic.

and i dont believe in magic.

do you have an alternative?

I’m glad you admit a problem in your conclusion…

As far as potential answers go, let me make a demonstration by analogy:
Apple = Design
Orange = Randomness
Pomegranate = Something Undiscovered

This isn’t an apple because I can’t call it an orange. It might be a pomegranate. But what if you and I have never seen or heard tell of a pomegranate? Does that mean we can default to apple? Of course not; that would be silly. If there is to be evidence of design, it ought to be clear by greater means than a deafult position.

I can’t say I’m too sure what you’re trying to say when you suggest that events would “work out every time,” like magic in a deterministic system that began randomly. What do you mean “work out?” Why do you say it’s “like magic?”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m glad you admit a problem in your conclusion…

i dont, i merely point out that C2 is the problem in our conversation.

As far as potential answers go, let me make a demonstration by analogy:
Apple = Design
Orange = Randomness
Pomegranate = Something Undiscovered

This isn’t an apple because I can’t call it an orange. It might be a pomegranate. But what if you and I have never seen or heard tell of a pomegranate? Does that mean we can default to apple? Of course not; that would be silly. If there is to be evidence of design, it ought to be clear by greater means than a deafult position.

it seems to me that there is no room for a third option. something is either random or it is nonrandom.

i could restate the argument, substituting the word design, for nonrandom. but i think the implication remains the same.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonrandom

nonrandom

1.Not at random, caused or manipulated, arranged.
The apparent accident was a nonrandom event: someone carefully arranged it to happen when and where it did.

I can’t say I’m too sure what you’re trying to say when you suggest that events would “work out every time,” like magic in a deterministic system that began randomly. What do you mean “work out?” Why do you say it’s “like magic?”

i mean coherency without cause.

all these uncountable free will events seem to be coherent. they seem to be a part of a deterministic universe, but to imagine that a random act causes this coherenency across trillions of free will events per hour, and the uncountable number of free will events across human history is ludicrous.

 

[tonyrey]

I can say that we are bodies.

You can say it until you’re blue in the face! Reality is not affected by what people say…

It’s your assumption that we are more than.

Hardly an assumption when we have immediate, direct knowledge of our thoughts…

You have to provide evidence for that claim.

You have already had it. Do you love a body?
BTW how do you know you have a body?

But according to you our intellectual development should overcome complacency and lack of understanding because it has occurred precisely for its survival value…

The system is efficient, not perfect.

Efficient enough to discover great powers of destruction but not efficient enough to discover great means of survival! What does that tell us about the survival value hypothesis? That the hypothesis itself is the product of survival value! Your hypothesis enables you to survive at the expense of those who differ from you! Reasoning is purported to be programmed in favour of your selfish genes…

I might be inclined to say that if God were perfect, he would create a perfect system - one not capable of foil and sin

You might be inclined to change your mind if you attempted to design a superior system…

The history of the human race reveals an increased power of destruction and an enormous loss of human and animal life due to our intellectual development. Is that survival?

The system is efficient, not perfect

That is the understatement of the year! The increased human power of destruction and the consequent, enormous loss of human and animal life is the result of the survival value of human intelligence!

Where are truth and purpose located? In your brain? Your physicalist assumptions distort your interpretation of reality.

So they take place nowhere?

Unlike physicalists I do not assume that everything has a physical location. Where are truth and purpose located? In your brain? Where is love located?

What evidence is there that awareness and self-awareness are located in the brain? Can they be observed?

Because you can’t be aware without one. It’s a reasonable connection to make.

How do you know awareness is located in the brain? Where are its precise whereabouts?

Can you explain how we have succeeded in thinking about thinking?

“How” in what way?

By which mechanism?

You believe rational beings have emerged from irrational processes. How?

What do you mean by “rational beings”?

Beings who can think and to a certain extent understand reality - unlike molecules.

If your important life decisions are based solely on logic you’re a drowning man grasping at thin air!

Not really sure what your trying to say here.

Is your decision to love and marry based solely on logic?
Do we imagine that we have a capacity for enjoyment? Is it a concept or a fact?

We have the capacity to enjoy things subjectively. The things we like, we call enjoyment. We can say that a cell enjoys being nourished, but all we really mean is that it is experiencing a credit to its survival or something that is potentially or instrumental to our survival. So it is with people…

So love is always conducive to survival?

But you believe an increase in complexity has enabled us to survive longer than simple organisms - in spite of evidence to the contrary from the history of the human race and other forms of life.

Increased complexity, I’m saying, has enabled us to survive longer than we used to (with lesser complexity). Forget the other organisms for now.

We are discussing whether survival value is the primary reason why we exist. Since other organisms survive longer complexity is not a sufficient explanation of the increase in complexity.

The truth is that you fancy the idea that the rest of the world fancies the idea of justice! The difference between us is that you are the odd man out. That doesn’t prove you are mistaken, of course, but the onus is on you to justify your contempt for the consensus of civilised human beings…

What contempt? My values aren’t divergent, for the most part, from what people have defined as justice.

They diverge from the reality of justice - which you regard as a matter of personal opinion.

Where did meaning come from? Do you think “meaning” is also a fancy? If so all your statements are meaningless (and everyone else’s of course!).

I suppose they are. Depends, really, what you mean by meaning. If by meaning, you are saying things lead to a greater or ultimate good, I disagree that they do. If by meaning, you are saying that we ascribe certain emotions or delineate things a certain way as per our ‘fancy,’ then I agree that we do and can and should.

The origin of meaning has nothing to do with fanciful ideas. Language exists to communicate the truth. You** think **we only fancy rights exist and life is valuable. The fact that you can’t see how the intrinsic right to life can be demonstrated doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

You’re welcome to provide an argument.

I have already but it has fallen on deaf ears… or a closed mind…

If your evaluation of life is not arbitrary there must be an objective reason on which it is based - the fact that it is a source of happiness.

My evaluation is arbitrary in the scheme of things. Here one day, gone the next.

That gives us a very good idea of what you think it’s worth! You prefer to reject the idea that life is valuable because it is a source of happiness - which is the most reasonable explanation. You reject it solely because it conflicts with your notion that values are fictitious…

I hear you, but I also know from what angle you speak. I answer many of your questions (and there are MANY of them). My inability to explain alternatives to your philosophy are testaments to gaps in the current knowledge of the natural world. That doesn’t mean they are wrong; they’re educated guesses based on what I can see around me. What I can’t answer, may not have an answer. It would be like asking “why is up not down? you must provide an explanation for it!”

My angle and philosophy are irrelevant. I am asking why you equate reality with the natural world - and restrict it to what is observed by the senses. How do you justify those assumptions? If they too are educated guessed on what are they based?

I am perfectly within reason to form my judgements based entirely within it.

“within reason” is not equivalent to “within the natural world”. You won’t find the principles of logic and the laws of thought there. What enables you to form judgements?

My job is not to give a survey of why everything is the way it is. It is the way it is and I am living in the natural world.

The question you ignore is** why **everything is the way it is - which is understandable because you replace “why?” with “how?” You don’t take reasons or purpose into account at all. Your “scheme of things” is restricted to **things **in which persons have a minute and insignificant role. For you love is objectively meaningless, worthless and pointless because you claim persons are ultimately just things which just happen to exist for no reason whatsoever…

 

[Think_About_It]

There’s only so many rebuttals I can make to a “God of the gaps” argument. I don’t know everything, tonyrey (and neither do you). I’m not going to substitute my ignorance with God. I’m not going on the defensive about things that you couldn’t be bothered to understand. Why don’t you tell me why God is the answer instead of speculating about why evolution is not.

 

[tonyrey]

There’s only so many rebuttals I can make to a “God of the gaps” argument.

Theism is based not on a "God of the gaps argument"but on a God of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love, all of which you are forced to reduce to mere concepts in human minds… Your posts have revealed the significant gaps in physicalism…

I don’t know everything, tonyrey (and neither do you).

That goes without saying. Have I made any claim to the contrary?

I’m not going to substitute my ignorance with God.

Indeed. You are substituting your ignorance with mindless matter.

I’m not going on the defensive about things that you couldn’t be bothered to understand.

Simply because they are indefensible!

Why don’t you tell me why God is the answer instead of speculating about why evolution is not.

You will find the answer in the questions in my last post that you have failed to answer. A fitting conclusion…

 

[Think_About_It]

Theism is based not on a "God of the gaps argument"but on a God of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love, all of which you are forced to reduce to mere concepts in human minds… Your posts have revealed the significant gaps in physicalism…

That goes without saying. Have I made any claim to the contrary?

Indeed. You are substituting your ignorance with mindless matter.

Simply because they are indefensible!

You will find the answer in the questions in my last post that you have failed to answer. A fitting conclusion…

You assume you can ask the question why. Explain that.

 

[tonyrey]

You assume you can ask the question why. Explain that.

You can find that in my latest post on another thread:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

 

[Think_About_It]

You can find that in my latest post on another thread:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

Explain how that’s so. Reiterate if you must.

 

[tonyrey]

Explain how that’s so. Reiterate if you must.

Physicalists would certainly dispute the principle of finality because they reduce “why?” to “how?”.They attribute purposeful activity to that which is purposeless - without explaining how it has come about!

What they fail to realise is that their explanation of reality overlooks the fact that their reasoning and explanation are purposeful. To regard reasoning as a mechanistic process is to undermine the validity of reasoning. If reasoning has no goal in view it is going precisely nowhere… To reject finality is to endow the past with supreme significance, to dismiss the future as irrelevant and be forced to live in the meaningless present…

Your request (You assume you can ask the question why. Explain that.) makes it clear that purpose is ultimately no more than an illusion - **according to the physicalist. **Everything occurs according to physical necessity - with consequences which are as inevitable as objects falling to the ground. A purpose has no reference to the future but is simply a physical function. So we only **imagine ** we have control over ourselves. We are just cogs in an immense machine moving along in space and time **for no reason or purpose whatsoever ** - and achieving precisely nothing…