The most baffling mystery of all

[Syntax]

Very good explanation!

I don’t deserve the credit. It’s Dretske’s. But let me be clear we are talking confirmation, not probability, since what scientists (and ourselves) actually do is construct a 2nd hypothesis about the asymmetry of the coin after so many unlikely repeated occurences of the same result have occurred, such as the occurence of nine straight heads after nine flips of the coin.

So supposing the coin comes up heads nine out of ten flips, we take this empirically observed frequency and construct a new a hypothesis from which we deduce future predictions about the probability of the next flip of the coin turning out heads. So we say something like, “since the ratio of favorable cases to all possible cases has so far been on the order 1, since nine out of nine flips came out heads, then it is much *more likely *that the next flip will turn out heads rather than not.”

But this rests on the assumption that unexamined future cases will **always **resemble past examined cases in any relevent respect for which there is no empirical evidence whatsoever since we have only observed a finite amount of instantances of the alleged generality we are implicitly assuming when we make predictions about the future. So it is the assumption that Nature is governed by a series of general laws, **together with **observable frequencies, that the unexamined future cases are given a probability assignment on the order of approaching 1.

The point to notice, here, is that “confirmation” does not proceed by raising the probability that a given hypothesis is true from one experiment to the next because, as we have seen, this probability is not affected by each experiment or piece of evidence that is encountered. To think otherwise is to be committing the reverse of the Gambler’s Fallacy. No. Confirmation, is raising the probability that the next unexamined case will be like the set of all past examined cases. And this task confirmation alone cannot do without an implicit assumption about natural laws from which predictions about the likelihood of future events, or test scenarious, can be deduced.

But now we’ve arrived at the problem of Induction, namely, the question of whether or not inferences from past to future cases can said to be in any fair sense reliable or justified inferences at all.

 

[Syntax]

My design here is simply to show that scientific methodologies of hypothesis-formation, testing, and verfication rely on many implicit assumptions that are beyond the ken of empirical evidence and mere probabilities. The worship of science encountered all over these forums is way too trusting and naive for its own good, and hence needs to be exposed. I’ve decided to reverse the burden of proof on the scientific-empiricist here by playing in his own court.

My question is this: what makes scientific methods any more reliable than any other methods of justification such as those encountered in philosophy, logic, mathematics, and even religion? After all, have we not abandoned all scientific theories of the past? What makes us think our new theories are any more approximately true than those of old? All I see is a flashy show of utility, predictive power, and **control **in the history of scientific methodology–but I definitely don’t see Truth anywhere.

Studying the philosophy of science over the years, and talking with scientists themselves, has been of immense value to me. The following is from another post of mine in this forum. It mentions most, if not all, the problems I know that scientists themselves recognize as deeply problematic. So some of you might have already seen this.

"All of the skepticism surrounding scientific methodology have been shown by respectable practicing scientists and philosphers themselves including individuals like Kuhn, van Fraassen, Quine, Duhem, Popper, Carnap, Hempel, Salmon, Kitcher, Cartwright, Maxwell, Feyerband, Strawson, etc…

Here are just a few problems these individuals will mention concerning scientific methodology that I have encountered in my many readings.

(1) Problem of our complete incapability of grounding Induction and the non-observability of Natural Necessity (Laws)
(2) Problem of non-epistemic Social factors within the Scientific Community itself which ultimately guide their choices in Theory Change
(3) Asymmetry of Utility and Truth
(4) The mutually exclusive trade-off between Theoretical Explanations and Empirical Accuracy
(5) The Looming Circularity threatening methods of Confirmation
(6) The Quine-Duhem Thesis of Underdetermination which says all Theories will be forever underdetermined with respect to the evidence, and hence truly unfalsifiable.
(7) The Pessimistic Induction about all past scientific failures

These are not skeptical positions proposed by some whacky post-modern idiot. They are genuine concerns that come from practicing scientists and philosophers themselves. And how we attempt to provide solutions to these problems will have a drastic impact on our view of what science is actually doing and what it consists of. Does scientific methodology really consist of the pursuit of freedom from error, or does it consist in the repeated employment of confirmation biases and untestable assumptions at its core?

 

[Think_About_It]

Then you’re an egoist who can work miracles!

As we all are deep inside us. I would only be willing to say my love is sacrificial if I was giving something up on which there was no return. The love I share with my fiancé has a point-to-point return on my investment, and vice versa. And mutual giving cannot really be distinguished from mutual taking except by the fact that when someone stops loving me, despite my efforts, that’s the point at which I disconnect (on that note: you can’t invest time and love in something that wields to return: it’s exhausting and foolish)

My first question makes my point quite clearly. Do you agree or disagree?

Social harmony beyond the mind? I can’t imagine what you’re referring to. Beyond the mind in what way(s)?

A supposition is a weak basis for a criterion of our value and significance…

I don’t mean supposition as in assumption, guess, or possibility; I mean the angle from which I speak (my supposition = physical world is all there is; your supposition = God, etc.)

Do we = reality?

Not sure what you mean to ask

Indeed but the issue is whether the meaning is arbitrary or based on fact rather than opinion.

Define meaning and tell me how it can be based on fact.

Conveniently vague! You disagree with the fundamental concept on which justice is based…

How so?

So love has a physical aspect and objective consequences. It doesn’t exist entirely in the mind…

The aspects and consequences are real; that we call those things love is in our minds.

And the method is based on what?

Based on the assumption that there is a physical universe, first and formost

Could we be capable of love without the power of reason?

**This is a hard thing to answer. My concept of love is twofold (the aspects and consequences + our conceptualization of love in our minds). Would we be capable of bringing about the aspects and consequences of love without reason? Maybe (I’m sure animals do things for each other that if we did them, they’d be called love). Obviously, though, the second part of love (our conceptualization of it) could not exist without reason. **

 

[R_Daneel]

Either you didn’t understand what the other philosopher was saying, or one of you made the mistake of confusing together classical probability, empirical probabilities (frequencies), logical probabilities, and Bayes’ theorem.

Oh well. Yet another post will be wasted, but what the heck. I am a mathematician, and have been lecturing on probability theory for decades. You cannot say anything new to me on the subject. However, I am not going to teach it here and now.

Logicians work with probability no less than mathematicians do. And the problem I mentioned has less to do with probability and more to do with the **epistemology of confirmation **anyway. So I suggest before you jump to conclusions that you actually listen to what I have to say instead of trying to strawman my argument.

Suppose I have a coin that you have by examination and test convinced yourself is quite normal. I propose to flip it ten times. I conjecture (for whatever reason) that it will land heads all ten times. You express doubts. I proceed to “confirm” the hypothesis. I flip the coin once. It lands heads. Is this evidence that my hypothesis is correct? Hardly.

So I continue flipping the coin and it turns up with nine straight heads. Given the opening assumption that we are dealing with a fair coin, the probability of getting all ten heads (the probability that my hypothesis is true) is now, after examination of 90% of the total population to which the hypothesis applies, still exactly 0.5.

First of all, what you offer is not really a scientific hypothesis but just gambling. If one uses the word “hypothesis” loosely, it can be called one, sort of.

Now if you wish to establish your hypothesis, one experiment of tossing a coin a few times is not sufficient. What you say about the 50% chance of each coin toss, is of course accurate, but it has nothing to do with verification.

What you need to learn about is statistical sampling, the different distributions stemming from the method of sample taking, chi-square testing, and whole lot of other, not too simple methods.

Here is the proper form of making a hypothesis of the coin toss. You examine the coin, see no obvious fault with it, and therefore hypothesize that it is a “good” coin. You wish to verify that assumption by making “n” coin tosses, and observe the distribution of heads and tails in the sequence. The coin tosses are independent events, in other words, the result of a toss does not influence the result of the next one (the opposite of this assumption is correctly called the Gambler’s Fallacy). We start with the fact that the probability of a head toss is “p” and the probability of a tail toss is “(1-p)”.

The null hypothesis is that “p” = 1/2.

To establish the veracity of this hypothesis we decide to make “n” number of tosses. If our hypothesis is true, we shall see approximately “n/2” of heads, and “n/2” of tails. How do we deduct from this result that the coin is really “good”, or not?

We set up a confidence level. In practice we usually use a 95% confidence, sometimes we might go up to 97.5% confidence. Now we look up a chi-square table, and find what kind of discrepancy we can expect from the “ideal” 1/2 value, and be still 95% sure that the coin was really “good”. This discrepancy is dependent on the number of tosses, obviously. The larger the number of experiments is the more precise our verification process turns out to be.

Learn about the chi-sqaure distribution here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-square_distribution
and the chi-square test here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-square_test

Have fun. It might take a few years to learn the beuties of probability theory, but it is a good investment.

 

[R_Daneel]

It is a mystery.

No, my friend, it is not a “mystery” it is sheer nonsense. The “mystery” cop-out is just wearing much too thin. Any time I bring up something that you guys cannot answer in a rational fashion, it quickly becomes a “mystery”. You are so very predictable. I am maintaining that the believers insult God by spreading ludicruous stories about what they believe God must be like.

God does not “shrug” off *any *sin because he is *infinitely *good. Even the most venial of sins is a severe offense against His Majesty.

Really? He could have forgiven that first, miniscule transgression, but he did not. He forgave the murder of the Lamb. What kind of idiocy is that?

I can assure you that your very existence is proof of the love of God. Now where is your proof that God does not love? (The point here is that my belief is based on faith, while yours is based on “proof”. I’m not the one who really needs to provide the proof, you are.)

The proof is the amount of unnecessary, useless misery, suffering, some of which even we can eliminate. God could eliminte all, if he wished to. And don’t bring up the usual “argument” that if we can do it, then it is our job to do it. If God “outsources” his helping hand, he is just another lazy guy, who says: “there is some need for help over there. I could go and do it, but I am not about to. You go and do it.”. That is not “love”, that is selfish indifference. Not to mention things which we cannot fix or prevent, like the current Earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. And if you think to bring up that God will reward the sufferers in heaven, better forget that, too. A loving parent does not allow his child to suffer, and then offer him a candy bar as a restitution.

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes it is unfair. Crack-babies are unfair. Infants suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome is a reality that is profoundly unfair. Wealthy parents blowing a fortune in gambling and other foolish financial decisions such that their children are left with nothing is incredibly unfair. And your point is…?

My point is very simple. Those are natural consequences. The “fall” and its alleged ramifications are not. Unless you can give some evidence that disobedience can cause tsunamis, hurricanes, Earthquakes, and the like.

Besides, God have arranged things otherwise from the get-go. He could have avoided creating crack and cocaine, and could have avoided creating intoxicating substances. Or keep the beneficial effects of these substances, but make us immune to the detrimental ones. There is no logical need to have them, so God’s alleged omnipotence could have dealt with all these questions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh well. Yet another post will be wasted, but what the heck. I am a mathematician, and have been lecturing on probability theory for decades. You cannot say anything new to me on the subject. However, I am not going to teach it here and now.

First of all, what you offer is not really a scientific hypothesis but just gambling. If one uses the word “hypothesis” loosely, it can be called one, sort of.

Now if you wish to establish your hypothesis, one experiment of tossing a coin a few times is not sufficient. What you say about the 50% chance of each coin toss, is of course accurate, but it has nothing to do with verification.

What you need to learn about is statistical sampling, the different distributions stemming from the method of sample taking, chi-square testing, and whole lot of other, not too simple methods.

Here is the proper form of making a hypothesis of the coin toss. You examine the coin, see no obvious fault with it, and therefore hypothesize that it is a “good” coin. You wish to verify that assumption by making “n” coin tosses, and observe the distribution of heads and tails in the sequence. The coin tosses are independent events, in other words, the result of a toss does not influence the result of the next one (the opposite of this assumption is correctly called the Gambler’s Fallacy). We start with the fact that the probability of a head toss is “p” and the probability of a tail toss is “(1-p)”.

The null hypothesis is that “p” = 1/2.

To establish the veracity of this hypothesis we decide to make “n” number of tosses. If our hypothesis is true, we shall see approximately “n/2” of heads, and “n/2” of tails. How do we deduct from this result that the coin is really “good”, or not?

We set up a confidence level. In practice we usually use a 95% confidence, sometimes we might go up to 97.5% confidence. Now we look up a chi-square table, and find what kind of discrepancy we can expect from the “ideal” 1/2 value, and be still 95% sure that the coin was really “good”. This discrepancy is dependent on the number of tosses, obviously. The larger the number of experiments is the more precise our verification process turns out to be.

Learn about the chi-sqaure distribution here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-square_distribution
and the chi-square test here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-square_test

Have fun. It might take a few years to learn the beuties of probability theory, but it is a good investment.

hey! thats what the back of the last, “how to play craps” card said, that i got at the casino!

so, now that you have claimed to be a mathematician. how do you explain your acceptance of logical contradictions, the self refuting ideas empiricism and verification/falsification schemes?

i dotn know any mathematician that accepts a logical contradiction as true. so your answer should be interesting.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, my friend, it is not a “mystery” it is sheer nonsense. The “mystery” cop-out is just wearing much too thin. Any time I bring up something that you guys cannot answer in a rational fashion, it quickly becomes a “mystery”.

of course it is a mystery, knowing the answer would require knowing what G-d does. do you know what G-d does or why? no, of course not so when you say, something is ridiculous, it is only your opinion, not an actual fault.

You are so very predictable. I am maintaining that the believers insult God by spreading ludicruous stories about what they believe God must be like.

actually G-d tells us in Scripture what He is like.

Really? He could have forgiven that first, miniscule transgression, but he did not. He forgave the murder of the Lamb. What kind of idiocy is that?

your opinion, thats it. since you arent omniscient, your opinion on the matter is pretty well meaningless.

The proof is the amount of unnecessary, useless misery, suffering, some of which even we can eliminate. God could eliminte all, if he wished to. And don’t bring up the usual “argument” that if we can do it, then it is our job to do it. If God “outsources” his helping hand, he is just another lazy guy, who says: “there is some need for help over there. I could go and do it, but I am not about to. You go and do it.”. That is not “love”, that is selfish indifference.

we chose suffering in the fall, lucifer chose suffering, etc

it all goes back to free will. love is letting your loved ones lead their own lives not to make their own decisions, thats little more than rape.

forcing yourself on someone is not love.

Not to mention things which we cannot fix or prevent, like the current Earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. And if you think to bring up that God will reward the sufferers in heaven, better forget that, too. A loving parent does not allow his child to suffer, and then offer him a candy bar as a restitution.

a loving parent does leave his kid in jail overnight. a loving parent doesnt force himself on his children, he allows them to make their own choices. even when he knows those arent the best choices.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My point is very simple. Those are natural consequences. The “fall” and its alleged ramifications are not. Unless you can give some evidence that disobedience can cause tsunamis, hurricanes, Earthquakes, and the like.

natural events arent evil, they have no intention whatsoever.

Besides, God have arranged things otherwise from the get-go. He could have avoided creating crack and cocaine, and could have avoided creating intoxicating substances. Or keep the beneficial effects of these substances, but make us immune to the detrimental ones. There is no logical need to have them, so God’s alleged omnipotence could have dealt with all these questions.

G-d didnt create any intoxicating substances, we did. they would have no detrimental effects if we didnt make them.

so there is no effect on G-ds omnipotence at all.

it comes again, back to free will.

 

[Magnanimity]

My point is very simple. Those are natural consequences. The “fall” and its alleged ramifications are not. Unless you can give some evidence that disobedience can cause tsunamis, hurricanes, Earthquakes, and the like.

I believe I tried to cover an important and relevant distinction above, but perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. You seem to be bouncing in and out of three quite separate issues.

First, we have an argument from natural evil.
Second, there is an argument from moral evil.
Third, you’ve brought up a fairness argument, as regards original sin (a sub-category, if you will, of an argument from moral evil).

It’s important that we keep our discussions clear and distinct or we’re going to end up treading the same ground all over again.

Regarding original sin and a Fall, with respect to a passing on of a disposition toward disobedience/selfishness, this would fall within an argument from moral evil. I pointed out instances above of examples where moral actions can and do affect offspring in a negative way, and we agree that it’s all unfair, yet it very obviously happens. So, there’s no argument, per se, against moral actions of humans negatively affecting the lives of offspring.

In the theology of the Fall, there is sometimes an incorporation of natural evils too, as all death and suffering is seen as the way things “ought not to be.” As an aside, the very fact that you and everyone else has such an aversion to the death and sufferng you see as consequences of earthquakes, tsunamis, etc, shows that you tacitly agree that there is something inherently repulsive (iow, bad) about death and suffering. in a loose way then, natural evils can be seen to be a consequence of the Fall, but this is separae and distinct from any argument you’d try to make about its being fair or unfair that we’ve inherited a propensity towards being selfish (sinful). On this argument, you haven’t yet tried to make a case.

Besides, God have arranged things otherwise from the get-go. He could have avoided creating crack and cocaine, and could have avoided creating intoxicating substances. Or keep the beneficial effects of these substances, but make us immune to the detrimental ones. There is no logical need to have them, so God’s alleged omnipotence could have dealt with all these questions.

To which is offered the classic free will defense combined with the theology ofthe Fall, one important aspect of which I allude to above–>the world right now is not right. Death and suffering are not ok. It’s not the way things were meant to be. There must be a better world ahead–>enter the theology of Heaven

 

[Image_of_God]

No, my friend, it is not a “mystery” it is sheer nonsense. The “mystery” cop-out is just wearing much too thin. Any time I bring up something that you guys cannot answer in a rational fashion, it quickly becomes a “mystery”. You are so very predictable. I am maintaining that the believers insult God by spreading ludicruous stories about what they believe God must be like.
An infinitely large amount of the world’s workings is a mystery. Is that a cop-out to? Are you willing to admit that you don’t know everything or will you dismiss what you do not know as “sheer nonsense”?

It is important to note that every time we ask you to prove something, you evade. Prove to me that certain past historical events occurred. Unless you can prove to me that they occurred, you are no different from us…you have to have faith in certain things.

Really? He could have forgiven that first, miniscule transgression, but he did not. He forgave the murder of the Lamb. What kind of idiocy is that?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[spn82756]

I don’t call the religious faith - in toto - blind, only certain parts of it, especially the assertion that God is benevolent. If you look around the world, can you quote me something fully rational (no theological underpinning) to support this? If you would look at the world with the skeptic’s eye, you see millions of instances when God could have intervened, or even better, prevented? The lack of such intervention is the evidence to the contrary. To keep on believing in God’s benevolence in the face of all the evidence to the contrary - does constitute “blind faith”.

At what point do you believe that God should prevent “bad” things from happening? At what point should they be allowed? God has set nature forth and follows the rules…with rate exception. When the rare exception occurs an atheist says that someday science may be able to explain that. So…in all fairness…you keep changing the playing field. There are documented miraculous cures of cancer and other diseases…but when these are documented you write them off as explainable by science. Maybe not today or tomorrow or a thousand years from now. You present a moving playing field. Keep it the field in place and we can show God’s benevolence.

Now…I don’t know if you are a parent. And if you are you may be a very good parent. At some point are there times when you do not step in just allow your children to find the errors of their ways…or pay the consequences of their actions? I’m not trying to say that earthquakes are the consequences of any persons actions…but if as a parent you will not prevent any harm or hard lessons from coming to your child…then how benevolent are you? Please note…I’m not saying that lessons are not good to learn from…I have to adult children myself. The thing is that we…as in God cannot just stop every negative thing from happening. Where are the times for joy if everything is a rose garden.

Just my thoughts.

 

[R_Daneel]

I believe I tried to cover an important and relevant distinction above, but perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. You seem to be bouncing in and out of three quite separate issues.

First, we have an argument from natural evil.
Second, there is an argument from moral evil.
Third, you’ve brought up a fairness argument, as regards original sin (a sub-category, if you will, of an argument from moral evil).

These are all related to each other and the assumption of God’s benevolence.

Regarding original sin and a Fall, with respect to a passing on of a disposition toward disobedience/selfishness, this would fall within an argument from moral evil. I pointed out instances above of examples where moral actions can and do affect offspring in a negative way, and we agree that it’s all unfair, yet it very obviously happens. So, there’s no argument, per se, against moral actions of humans negatively affecting the lives of offspring.

Yes, there certainly is. The negative consequences are not “absolute” in the sense that given any kind of state of affairs they are a logical corollary of the action.

In the theology of the Fall, there is sometimes an incorporation of natural evils too, as all death and suffering is seen as the way things “ought not to be.” As an aside, the very fact that you and everyone else has such an aversion to the death and sufferng you see as consequences of earthquakes, tsunamis, etc, shows that you tacitly agree that there is something inherently repulsive (iow, bad) about death and suffering.

Almost exactly true, but not quite. As far as death is concerned, I have no quarrel with that - though I can imagine that life can go one forever. After all, life is nothing but a special arrangement of matter. Suffering, however, is a different issue. If there are positive results of a temporary discomfort, we can argue that this positive outcome outweighs the negative aspect of suffering, and the overall balance is positive. However, the problem is much deeper than that. If there is a way to achieve the same result without the suffering, it was a gratitous suffering, and no definition of “love” is compatible with it. Here God’s omnipotence comes into the picture.

in a loose way then, natural evils can be seen to be a consequence of the Fall, but this is separae and distinct from any argument you’d try to make about its being fair or unfair that we’ve inherited a propensity towards being selfish (sinful). On this argument, you haven’t yet tried to make a case.

No, they cannot be seen as such. A decision of “disobedience” cannot trigger natural disasters.

To which is offered the classic free will defense combined with the theology ofthe Fall, one important aspect of which I allude to above–>the world right now is not right. Death and suffering are not ok. It’s not the way things were meant to be. There must be a better world ahead–>enter the theology of Heaven

The free will defense is incorrect. It has been proven to be incorrect many times. It is possible to construct a world where free will and free actions are the norm, and yet, no moral evil occurs.

 

[R_Daneel]

At what point do you believe that God should prevent “bad” things from happening?

Always.

At what point should they be allowed?

Never.

God has set nature forth and follows the rules…with rate exception. When the rare exception occurs an atheist says that someday science may be able to explain that. So…in all fairness…you keep changing the playing field. There are documented miraculous cures of cancer and other diseases…but when these are documented you write them off as explainable by science. Maybe not today or tomorrow or a thousand years from now. You present a moving playing field. Keep it the field in place and we can show God’s benevolence.

There are no properly documented cases of “miracles” - as far as I know. But I am willing to listen. However, please don’t bring up anecdotes.

Now…I don’t know if you are a parent. And if you are you may be a very good parent. At some point are there times when you do not step in just allow your children to find the errors of their ways…or pay the consequences of their actions?

Easy to answer: when they became adults, I stepped out of their lives. But we shall never become “adults” vis-a-vis God. If we could grow up to be as God is; as soon as we acquire the power and the wisdom of God, we become adults. At that point God can step out of the picture, and become like I am regarding my kid. But not sooner!

I’m not trying to say that earthquakes are the consequences of any persons actions…but if as a parent you will not prevent any harm or hard lessons from coming to your child…then how benevolent are you? Please note…I’m not saying that lessons are not good to learn from…I have to adult children myself. The thing is that we…as in God cannot just stop every negative thing from happening. Where are the times for joy if everything is a rose garden.

We must use your properly described method, because we are powerless to act otherwise. We are not omnipotent nor are we omniscient, therefore we are “doomed” to use the inferior method. Moreover, even if I must allow my child to learn via this method, I would never allow him to make a fatal decision. To return your question: if you are aware that a decision will be fatal, you have the power to prevent that fatal decision, and yet you do not interfere, then where is your benevolence?

And why the idea: “one strike and you are out”? What kind of love does not allow second and third chances? And don’t say that God allows that. After the one and only act of disobedience God chased Adam and Eve from his presence. That is not patience, and that is not love.

You say that our actions cannot directy cause Earthquakes. So why does God allow them? The movement of the tectonic plates could be rearranged (with a bit of tinkering) and there would be no Earthquakes, at all. It would not require God to constantly interfering. God shouls have created a “perfect” world, where “miracles” are the norm. You assert that the laws of nature are subject to God’s will. It is easy to imagine a different set of natural laws where there are no disasters.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The free will defense is incorrect. It has been proven to be incorrect many times. It is possible to construct a world where free will and free actions are the norm, and yet, no moral evil occurs.

id be happy to refute that silliness once again, but since its a bare assertion, i will simply reply in kind.

no its not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Always.

that violates free will.

Never.

this violates free will also.

There are no properly documented cases of “miracles” - as far as I know. But I am willing to listen. However, please don’t bring up anecdotes.

there are no such things as miracles or magic. clarkes 3rd law

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

G-ds power is just the most advanced “technology”. just because you dont know how something is done doesnt make it magic. we arent tribesman after all, to scream in terror at a lightbulb, because we dont understand its mechanism.

Easy to answer: when they became adults, I stepped out of their lives. But we shall never become “adults” vis-a-vis God. If we could grow up to be as God is; as soon as we acquire the power and the wisdom of God, we become adults. At that point God can step out of the picture, and become like I am regarding my kid. But not sooner!

so if your children are never as smart as you, as talented, or have the same abilities you have, then you wouldnt leave them, alone to be adults? you would keep fiorcing your will on them just because you knew best?

thats ridiculous.

We must use your properly described method, because we are powerless to act otherwise. We are not omnipotent nor are we omniscient, therefore we are “doomed” to use the inferior method. Moreover, even if I must allow my child to learn via this method, I would never allow him to make a fatal decision. To return your question: if you are aware that a decision will be fatal, you have the power to prevent that fatal decision, and yet you do not interfere, then where is your benevolence?

from G-ds point of view there is no such thing as ‘fatal’.

when someone dies, that is not the end of their existence, that is the end of their physical body. its been taken by G-d as a punishment. they deserved what they got, and even if its from a natural disaster, so what? its still not ‘fatal’, they still exist.

you fear death, so you make it out to be some horrible thing. but if your living right, and trusting in G-d, there is nothing to fear.

youre projecting.

And why the idea: “one strike and you are out”? What kind of love does not allow second and third chances? And don’t say that God allows that. After the one and only act of disobedience God chased Adam and Eve from his presence. That is not patience, and that is not love.

how many times should someone be allowed to speed before they are ticketed?

they made their choice, the consequences followed.

You say that our actions cannot directy cause Earthquakes. So why does God allow them? The movement of the tectonic plates could be rearranged (with a bit of tinkering) and there would be no Earthquakes, at all. It would not require God to constantly interfering. God shouls have created a “perfect” world, where “miracles” are the norm. You assert that the laws of nature are subject to God’s will. It is easy to imagine a different set of natural laws where there are no disasters.

he did create a perfect world, it was called the Garden of Eden. now we suffer because of the fall.

 

[tonyrey]

Then you’re an egoist who can work miracles!

You are confusing selfishness with self-interest. We are egoists only if we always put our own interests first.

I would only be willing to say my love is sacrificial if I was giving something up on which there was no return. The love I share with my fiancé has a point-to-point return on my investment, and vice versa. And mutual giving cannot really be distinguished from mutual taking except by the fact that when someone stops loving me, despite my efforts, that’s the point at which I disconnect (on that note: you can’t invest time and love in something that wields to return: it’s exhausting and foolish)

Your love is indeed egoistic if you are always expecting something in return for what you do - unlike those who give their life to save others. Would you deliberately let your relatives and friends die if you could save them by sacrificing yourself?
My first question makes my point quite clearly. Do you agree or disagree?

Social harmony beyond the mind? I can’t imagine what you’re referring to. Beyond the mind in what way(s)?

Does society exist only in the mind? Is there a sharp dividing line between the mental and physical aspects of a person?

I don’t mean supposition as in assumption, guess, or possibility; I mean the angle from which I speak (my supposition = physical world is all there is; your supposition = God, etc.)

How do you base our value and significance on the physical world?

Do we = reality?

Not sure what you mean to ask

Are our minds real? Or a part of reality?

Define meaning and tell me how it can be based on fact.

The meaning of a word, symbol, gesture, smile, event, situation or even life is how it is interpreted. It can be either true or false.

Conveniently vague! You disagree with the fundamental concept on which justice is based…

How so?

The objective reality of free will and responsibility.

The aspects and consequences are real; that we call those things love is in our minds.

So love is unreal but has real consequences!

And the method is based on what?

Based on the assumption that there is a physical universe, first and foremost

But you have already agreed that the primary fact, not assumption, is that we are thinking.
That must be the first and foremost basis of all reasoning…

Could we be capable of love without the power of reason?

This is a hard thing to answer. My concept of love is twofold (the aspects and consequences + our conceptualization of love in our minds). Would we be capable of bringing about the aspects and consequences of love without reason? Maybe (I’m sure animals do things for each other that if we did them, they’d be called love)

.
Their love is instinctive whereas our love entails reason and emotion.

Obviously, though, the second part of love (our conceptualization of it) could not exist without reason.

Nor could it exist without the reality to which the concept refers… For you love is the most valuable form of knowledge. What is it knowledge of? Something unreal? Something you invent or imagine? “The thing I love most about her is that she exists.” Is her existence a fact or an opinion? And when you refer to “she” do you mean just her body?

 

[Magnanimity]

Yes, there certainly is. The negative consequences are not “absolute” in the sense that given any kind of state of affairs they are a logical corollary of the action.

But, we’re not working with “any kind” of state of affairs. We’re forced to deal with what’s actually the case, not just what’s logically possible. What actually obtains in this world is that parents can and do pass on all sorts of unfair states of affairs to their progeny. That’s just the way things are. Analogously, original sin is a more all-encompassing manner of the same basic phenomenon.

Almost exactly true, but not quite. As far as death is concerned, I have no quarrel with that - though I can imagine that life can go one forever.

I’m sure you can, so also for the rest of us. It seems perfectly sensible, if not more sensible than an alternative possibility of cessation of existence at death.

After all, life is nothing but a special arrangement of matter.

“Life” is “nothing but” something “special,” huh? I suppose I couldn’t even disagree with that very general statement which affirms at least something extraordinary about life.

Suffering, however, is a different issue. If there are positive results of a temporary discomfort, we can argue that this positive outcome outweighs the negative aspect of suffering, and the overall balance is positive. However, the problem is much deeper than that. If there is a way to achieve the same result without the suffering, it was a gratitous suffering, and no definition of “love” is compatible with it. Here God’s omnipotence comes into the picture.

That some evils are horrendous, in either a moral sense or in their natural consequences, has been admitted by all theists I’ve read who’ve written extensively on the subject (eg, Plantinga, the Adams’, Geisler). However, gratuity is a separate notion. I grant a seeming gratuity in this or that case, but this will just as easily be borne out of our ignorance of all factors involved, as not. I really don’t see how you or I, with our very limited glimpses into the internal lives of others, can properly judge and assess to determine what was obviously gratuitous, what was a borderline case, and what was actually beneficial.

Then there’s the other side of things, that attitude we have towards our own existence. (I mentioned this before, above.) He who approaches his own day to day existence with a little humility will realize that his entitlements in life are actually very few.

No, they cannot be seen as such. A decision of “disobedience” cannot trigger natural disasters.

I don’t see anything underlying your comment here except possibly an anti-supernaturalism bias, a sort of begging in favor of your own position without arguing for it.

The free will defense is incorrect. It has been proven to be incorrect many times. It is possible to construct a world where free will and free actions are the norm, and yet, no moral evil occurs.

I’m not sure what you’re basing this on. I’m aware that the free will defense of Plantinga, for example, though not admitted by everyone, was nevertheless seen as a substantial contribution. In the very least, it certainly was not undermined so easily as you seem to suggest.

It also cannot be said that in those fields which are related to this free will discussion within the philosophy of religion (eg, action theory), that the argument over determinism vs some sort of libertarian view incorporating indeterminancy has been settled. One of my favorite philosophy profs in undergrad, as an example, writes extensively in action theory today and defends libertarian accounts of free will, even within some sort of deterministic framework (Randolph Clarke, now at FSU).

 

[Image_of_God]

These are all related to each other and the assumption of God’s benevolence.

Yes, there certainly is. The negative consequences are not “absolute” in the sense that given any kind of state of affairs they are a logical corollary of the action.

Almost exactly true, but not quite. As far as death is concerned, I have no quarrel with that - though I can imagine that life can go one forever. After all, life is nothing but a special arrangement of matter. Suffering, however, is a different issue. If there are positive results of a temporary discomfort, we can argue that this positive outcome outweighs the negative aspect of suffering, and the overall balance is positive. However, the problem is much deeper than that. If there is a way to achieve the same result without the suffering, it was a gratitous suffering, and no definition of “love” is compatible with it. Here God’s omnipotence comes into the picture.

No, they cannot be seen as such. A decision of “disobedience” cannot trigger natural disasters.

The free will defense is incorrect. It has been proven to be incorrect many times. It is possible to construct a world where free will and free actions are the norm, and yet, no moral evil occurs.

This whole debate appears as if we are running in place and I think I have observed why.

You are much too selective in which posts you will answer to. Thus, you will always choose a post for which you think you have a good response and for the ones for which you don’t, you simply ignore. I understand if you don’t have enough time to answer all the posts addressed to you; many people do not. But I’ve been observant enough to conclude (possibly wrongly, but almost certainly) that that is not the case here. Rather than address a question that is difficult to answer and at least confess that there is a possible mistake, you simply evade it.

I cannot force you to answer all (or most) of the questions addressed to you, since I don’t know all the circumstances, I entreat you to at least confess that like any of us Christians, you guard your doctrines with great zealousness. Then we can remove the claim that what you believe isn’t simply another religion.