Which is more economical: theism or atheism?

[hecd2]

It is important to clarify our views so that we know precisely where we differ.

Why?

Not at all. I believe body and spirit are both real but the Ultimate Reality is God Who is intangible and “spiritual” in the sense that we possess and reflect to a very limited extent His creative power.

I wasn’t talking about your beliefs about the nature of God, but whether your extreme substance dualism is generally shared by Catholic metaphysicians and theologians. I was hoping intinerant might butt in here to give another perspective.

On the contrary, I acknowledge as a hypothesis that the mind can function independently, but I reject that hypothesis for total lack of evidence. If you have evidence that the mind can function independently, then, as I said, that would be pretty revolutionary, as it would be an utter defeater of monism, and honest thinkers would all have to accept a radical substance dualism. So now is the time to produce that evidence.

My position is not so revolutionary as you believe because everyone who believes in one God is a monist.

Really? You surprise me. Are you sure? Because, dang me, I thought my position on the mind-body problem was the monist one. Are you sure that you know what monism is and how it differs from monotheism? Are you sure you are really competently set up to debate the mind-body problem?

God is defined as the Supreme Being who creates everything. It is misleading even to regard God as the Supreme Mind or Spirit because these are human categories which cannot describe Ultimate Reality adequately. They are analogous terms which conceal our inability to comprehend the Incomprehensible.

Well, leaving aside the fact that attributing meaning to unreferred terms like Supreme Mind and Ultimate Reality is a problem, is this supposed to be the evidence for the ability of the human mind to function independently of the brain?

Theists believe both mind and matter are created by God but not simultaneously. The vast majority of human beings have always believed in the reality of both mind and body, spirit and matter - and in their interaction. That interaction is not confined to human beings because animals are not generally regarded as machines. They are autonomous, sentient and purposeful - although their purposes are instinctive rather than rational. Unlike inanimate molecular compounds all living organisms have a goal which integrates and directs their activity. This fact alone reveals the inadequacy of materialism without even having to consider rational autonomy and responsibility.

No evidence here for the operation of the human mind separate from a working brain either - just assertion, an appeal to the majority and some metaphysical history.

On an aside, perhaps you would tell us what the goal of hermaphoditic Caenorhabditis elegans is and how the 959 cells that it make it up are different from a smart machine.

So you conclude that a person ceases to exist if all rational activity ceases?

If all brain activity ceases then that person has ceased to exist - hence the moral acceptability of not preserving the life of those in a brain dead state.

That anyone who is born mentally defective or becomes insane, senile or severely brain damaged does not have the right to life?

Of course not - impaired brain activity, cognition and mind is not the same as their absence.

That the inability to understand anything or express oneself demonstrates that the capacity for reasoning either never existed or has ceased to exist?

That depends on the degree and nature of the impairment. Obviously an inability to communicate is not in itself compelling evidence for cessation of mind processes, nor is a reversible coma or vegetative state, but comatose brain death accompanying a history of severe and irreversible brain trauma and lack of neural activity taken together do indicate that the capacity for reasoning has ceased to exist. And of course, this is also true in the case of death. But let me ask you this - do you regard a fetiform teratoma or an acephalic monster as a person?

That the state of brain alone determines whether a person is a person

Well, if the brain has irreversibly ceased to function there is no longer a person present.

…and explains consciousness, intentionality, rationality, free will, responsibility and the capacity for love?

Hang on - baby steps first: where is the evidence for the independent functioning of the mind? This was your opportunity to put some forward.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[tonyrey]

hecd2;5875733:

It is important to clarify our views so that we know precisely where we differ.

Why?Why do you discuss anything?

I wasn’t talking about your beliefs about the nature of God, but whether your extreme substance dualism is generally shared by Catholic metaphysicians and theologians.

Catholics believe:

1. Only God existed before He created the universe = monism.
2. God created the physical universe and persons = dualism.

… my position on the mind-body problem was the monist one.

Materialistic monism…

Well, leaving aside the fact that attributing meaning to unreferred terms like Supreme Mind and Ultimate Reality is a problem, is this supposed to be the evidence for the ability of the human mind to function independently of the brain?

The evidence is our consciousness, insight and power to control ourselves, our brain and our environment

Theists believe both mind and matter are created by God but not simultaneously. The vast majority of human beings have always believed in the reality of both mind and body, spirit and matter - and in their interaction. That interaction is not confined to human beings because animals are not generally regarded as machines. They are autonomous, sentient and purposeful - although their purposes are instinctive rather than rational. Unlike inanimate molecular compounds all living organisms have a goal which integrates and directs their activity. This fact alone reveals the inadequacy of materialism without even having to consider rational autonomy and responsibility.

No evidence here for the operation of the human mind separate from a working brain either - just assertion, an appeal to the majority and some metaphysical history.

You don’t consider our consciousness, insight and power to control ourselves as evidence? The fact that we can grasp intangible realities like truth, goodness, justice and love demonstrates that our mind exists at a higher level than physical objects like the brain.

On an aside, perhaps you would tell us what the goal of hermaphoditic Caenorhabditis elegans is and how the 959 cells that it make it up are different from a smart machine.

The urge to survive and the directiveness of its activity.

If all brain activity ceases then that person has ceased to exist - hence the moral acceptability of not preserving the life of those in a brain dead state.

If all brain activity ceases the mind is no longer an **embodied **mind but it does not cease to exist. Brain activity alone does not explain all the activities of the mind…

…anyone who is born mentally defective or becomes insane, senile or severely brain damaged does not have the right to life?

Of course not - impaired brain activity, cognition and mind is not the same as their absence. Why does anyone have the right to life?

Obviously an inability to communicate is not in itself compelling evidence for cessation of mind processes, nor is a reversible coma or vegetative state, but comatose brain death accompanying a history of severe and irreversible brain trauma and lack of neural activity taken together do indicate that the capacity for reasoning has ceased to exist. And of course, this is also true in the case of death.

What is the evidence that the brain is responsible for consciousness, the capacity for reasoning and self-control? If there is none there is no evidence that the mind ceases to exist at death.

… do you regard a fetiform teratoma or an acephalic monster as a person?

I do not claim to have inside knowledge of borderline cases…

Well, if the brain has irreversibly ceased to function there is no longer a person present.

How can you possibly know that, given that the mind is intangible and has no physical location? Physical absence only entails non-existence if one is a materialist…

… where is the evidence for the independent functioning of the mind?

The mind functions as a conscious, autonomous entity, not as a collection of events caused by physical processes in the brain.There is also overwhelming evidence of Design in the universe. The existence of rational beings capable of design is evidence of a Rational Being from whom we derive that freedom and power - which are not explained by neural activity.

 

[wanstronian]

Neither determinism nor indeterminism are consistent with self-determinism which entails the freedom to determine our own destiny. Determinism leaves no scope at all for free will and determinism leaves insufficient scope.

Sorry - you seem to have gone off-topic again. We were talking about physical causes.

In that case there is an objective criterion of progress.

First, your logic is faulty. The change of opinions over time does not provide an objective criterion of progress. Second, your comment has no bearing on the topic, which was whether rights are absolute. I have shown definitively that they are not.

Go back through the thread and read my posts properly.

It means that the best available

explanation is theism.It’s no explanation at all. It’s just an answer. “God did it, that’s all you need to know.” You may be simple-minded enough to just accept a fluff answer that doesn’t actually explain anything, but I’m not. Would you accept that “The Unicorns did it?”

In the meantime the most reasonable conclusion is that physical constants exist regardless of man.

I never said they didn’t. You’ve gone so far off-topic here that you’re trying to win a point that I never contested.

A successful human existence consists in the fulfilment of the purposes for which we are created: the pursuit of truth and goodness, justice and beauty, love and perfection. Personal fulfilment and happiness are the result of moral integrity which enables us to coexist with others in peace and harmony. Moral corruption is a cancer which destroys the individual and even the community because it undermines personal relationships and leads to conflict and disharmony. The Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian concept of Karma are both based on the fact that our vices incur their own punishment.

That’s your subjective opinion of what makes your existence ‘successful.’ An objective definition might be, “to live long enough to reproduce.”

Differences of opinion simply demonstrate that one or more opinions are erroneous.

That does not preclude subjectivity.

It is not my judgment but the consensus of mankind that chimps are not responsible for their behaviour because they are ruled by instinct rather than reason.

And AGAIN you change the subject to try and win a point! We were talking about whether chimps were self-aware. Last chance - stop lying now.

Because you constantly seek to evade the fact that thoughts are objectively real.

Outright lie. I have said several times that thoughts are real. I have **not evaded **but denied that thoughts are reality. I have given tons of evidence to support my comments, but naturally you have ignored it because you would otherwise have to admit that I am right.

I am trying to reach a conclusion but cannot do so when I do not receive answers to straightforward questions…

Every time you ask a straightforward question I give you a straightforward answer. You then add some arbitrary qualifier in an attempt to make my answer invalid, then blame me for your own ugly tactics.

There’s is obviously no point in trying to reason with a person who refuses to answer a straightforward question…

I’m finding that’s true each time you post another misrepresentative comment.

The immense value of existence is empirically provable because existence is the source of opportunities for all our activities - including reaching conclusions about the nature of reality.

Ah - so you don’t understand what ‘empirical’ means. A clue - it doesn’t mean your opinion.

You are a materialist and cannot account for the origin of matter yet you criticise theists who cannot account for the origin of God!

Ah - the good old “Tu Quoque” fallacy. The fallback of theists who can’t defend their irrational assertions.

So the dogmatic assertion that evolution is

purposeless is unjustified.It wasn’t a dogmatic assertion - it is an axiom of the Natural Selection theory of Evolution. What’s dogmatic is to assume higher purpose when no evidence of such purpose exists. You are attributing your own fallacy to me, a common theist ploy as mentioned above.

Scientists are not metaphysicians. The fact of purposeful activity in living organisms and of design is evidence of Design.

You’re confusing evidence with hypothesis again, and ignoring the established fact of emergent properties.

So the belief that evolution is purposeless is produced by a purposeful organism which is produced by purposeless evolution!

Not sure I ‘produced’ the belief - that implies that nobody’s ever thought it before and that I’m making a bare assertion, neither of which is true. But apart from that, you’ve got it bang on, and you’ve again illustrated that your belief system stems from personal incredulity not rational thought.

Naturalism is the product of intelligence which regards itself as the product of unintelligent processes. Theism is the product of intelligence which regards itself as the product of an Intelligent Being. Intelligence is clearly superior to that which lacks intelligence.

So God exists because if he exists then he’s intelligent which is better than being unintelligent? Nice reasoning! In which schoolyard did you hear that?

In the context of the development of an immensely valuable existence benefit is the most reasonable interpretation.

Yes, but benefactor, in terms of an intelligent donating entity, is a spurious and unfounded claim.

 

[MariaTS]

Neither. Religion or lack of Religion has absolutely nothing to do with the economy.

 

[tonyrey]

I think the time has come to sum up. Would you agree with this resume of your position?

Our common subjective experiences are the basis for our belief in one common physical reality. Intangible activities are not our starting point because our collective experience of physical reality is consistent. Our starting point is our physical bodies. We do not have intangible experiences before our physical body is manifest. We start with the reality of our physical existence.

A consensus of everyone’s thoughts is valueless as evidence. Our mental processes are not evidence for the objective reality of our thoughts, feelings and decisions. Thoughts and feelings are not the prime reality because they are not consistent. The fact that all human beings have thoughts and feelings proves nothing. Given this lack of evidence for extra-physical sources of consciousness we are rationally bound to assume that the source is ultimately physical. No evidence exists for another form of reality in which only a subset of people believe. Our thoughts originate within our brains as far as anybody can tell. The mind is an abstract of the brain. A person is a physical, indivisible organism.

For the universe to exist a certain set of physical factors had to exist. Physical reality is the only framework that invests objective meaning. Human beings are successful if they live long enough to reproduce. The belief that evolution is purposeless is produced by purposeful organisms produced by purposeless evolution. It is an established fact that all purposeful activity is the result of emergent properties. Our morals have evolved over many thousands of years and local conventions guide us in creating rights. Conscience has evolved due to its survival value. We are not obliged to follow social rules but it is not in our interest to ignore them and it would conflict with our evolved morals. Human rights are not objective facts but a matter of definition. Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, equality, innocence, guilt and responsibility are concepts, not objective realities. The fact that existence is a source of opportunities does not mean it is valuable. Free will is an illusion. Good and evil exist only in the mind. The change of opinions over time does not provide an objective criterion of moral development.

Individual brain events are not conscious of what they are doing. We cannot control our thoughts but we can decide what to think about. The brain is responsible for all our thoughts and actions. It’s unlikely that every brain cell is involved in every decision. Brain activity creates consciousness. Our understanding is a product of our brain function. Thoughts are a transient, intangible, non-effecting products of brain processes. The thoughts we have do not have any bearing on anyone else’s universe. The mind or self is not an entity but a collection of mental activities + random access memory. We are the products of our heredity and environment.

We are responsible for what we did 10 years ago because of the RAM in our brains. How a biological machine acquires independent control of its functions is not known. We can control a very few aspects of our body. Naturalism is not empirically provable. Physical constants exist regardless of man. Today’s standards are superior to previous ones and there has been moral progress. All that we can ever absolutely know is that we are thinking.

 

[Oreoracle]

Neither. Religion or lack of Religion has absolutely nothing to do with the economy.

I almost died laughing.

 

[wanstronian]

I think the time has come to sum up. Would you agree with this resume of your position?

Our common subjective experiences are the basis for our belief in one common physical reality. Intangible activities are not our starting point because our collective experience of physical reality is consistent. Our starting point is our physical bodies. We do not have intangible experiences before our physical body is manifest. We start with the reality of our physical existence.

Agreed.

A consensus of everyone’s thoughts is valueless as evidence. Our mental processes are not evidence for the objective reality of our thoughts, feelings and decisions.

I never said this.

Thoughts and feelings are not the prime reality because they are not consistent.

No - not because they are not consistent, but because they can’t happen without the extant physical. Think of it this way: before there was life on Earth, there was still the Earth. It didn’t beome reality when something existed to have thought processes about it.

The fact that all human beings have thoughts and feelings proves nothing.

I never said this either.

Given this lack of evidence for extra-physical sources of consciousness we are rationally bound to assume that the source is ultimately physical. No evidence exists for another form of reality in which only a subset of people believe. Our thoughts originate within our brains as far as anybody can tell. The mind is an abstract of the brain. A person is a physical, indivisible organism.

For the universe to exist a certain set of physical factors had to exist. Physical reality is the only framework that invests objective meaning. Human beings are successful if they live long enough to reproduce.

I merely provided an objective definition. I never said it was **my **only criterion.

The belief that evolution is purposeless is produced by purposeful organisms produced by purposeless evolution.

You’re conflating two different levels of ‘purpose’ but ultimately, yes.

It is an established fact that all purposeful activity is the result of emergent properties.

Never said this either.

Our morals have evolved over many thousands of years and local conventions guide us in creating rights. Conscience has evolved due to its survival value. We are not obliged to follow social rules but it is not in our interest to ignore them and it would conflict with our evolved morals. Human rights are not objective facts but a matter of definition. Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, equality, innocence, guilt and responsibility are concepts, not objective realities. The fact that existence is a source of opportunities does not mean it is valuable.

??

Free will is an illusion. Good and evil exist only in the mind. The change of opinions over time does not provide an objective criterion of moral development.

Individual brain events are not conscious of what they are doing. We cannot control our thoughts but we can decide what to think about. The brain is responsible for all our thoughts and actions. It’s unlikely that every brain cell is involved in every decision. Brain activity creates consciousness. Our understanding is a product of our brain function. Thoughts are a transient, intangible, non-effecting products of brain processes.

Not quite - our thoughts can affect us bio-chemically - ie. emotions borne of particular thoughts. Our thoughts can also affect the environment should we choose to act physically upon them.

The thoughts we have do not have any bearing on anyone else’s universe.

Unless we physically act upon them.

The mind or self is not an entity but a collection of mental activities + random access memory. We are the products of our heredity and environment.

We are responsible for what we did 10 years ago because of the RAM in our brains. How a biological machine acquires independent control of its functions is not known. We can control a very few aspects of our body. Naturalism is not empirically provable. Physical constants exist regardless of man. Today’s standards are superior to previous ones and there has been moral progress.

By today’s standards.

All that we can ever absolutely know is that we are thinking.

 

[tonyrey]

A consensus of everyone’s thoughts is valueless as evidence. Our mental processes are not evidence for the objective reality of our thoughts, feelings and decisions.

What is your view?

                                         Thoughts and feelings are not the prime reality because they are not consistent.

No - not because they are not consistent, but because they can’t happen without the extant physical. Think of it this way: before there was life on Earth, there was still the Earth. It didn’t become reality when something existed to have thought processes about it.

                           Do you **know** that thoughts and feelings can't happen without the extant physical? Or is it your belief?

The fact that all human beings have thoughts and feelings proves nothing.

I never said this either.

What does it prove?

Human beings are successful if they live long enough to reproduce.

​

I merely provided an objective definition. I never said it was **my **only criterion.

 What are your other criteria of a successful human life?.

It is an established fact that all purposeful activity is the result of emergent properties.

Never said this either.

What is your view then?

Our morals have evolved over many thousands of years and local conventions guide us in creating rights. Conscience has evolved due to its survival value. We are not obliged to follow social rules but it is not in our interest to ignore them and it would conflict with our evolved morals. Human rights are not objective facts but a matter of definition. Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, equality, innocence, guilt and responsibility are concepts, not objective realities. The fact that existence is a source of opportunities does not mean it is valuable.

??

Which of these statements do you reject?

Thoughts are a transient, intangible, non-effecting products of brain processes.

Not quite - our thoughts can affect us bio-chemically - ie. emotions borne of particular thoughts. Our thoughts can also affect the environment should we choose to act physically upon them.

But our choices are determined by our brain processes?

Today’s standards are superior to previous ones and there has been moral progress.

By today’s standards.

So there is no objective criterion of moral progress?

                          All that we can ever absolutely know is that we are thinking.

Do you accept this statement?

 

[wanstronian]

What is your view?
Do you know that thoughts and feelings can’t happen without the extant physical? Or is it your belief?
What does it prove?

What are your other criteria of a successful human life?.
What is your view then?
Which of these statements do you reject?
But our choices are determined by our brain processes?
So there is no objective criterion of moral progress?
Do you accept this statement?

To be quite honest, I’ve had enough of this thread. Every time I make a comment you twist it to mean something else, then I have to spend the next three posts trying to bring you back to what I actually said. By which time, the point of the original comment has been lost. You are constantly rabbit-holing with my comments, such that the subject of the thread ends up miles away from what it started out as. I think it’s clear you don’t have an ultimate goal in this thread, despite your previous claim that you wanted to take it to its natural conclusion. All you can do is make irrelevant snipes at comments - I take this as confirmation that you are unable to find any real flaws in my logic. It’s a shame you can’t admit it though.

I’d be happy to debate with you again, but only if you can keep to the subject and stop misrepresenting me.

So long for now.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it’s clear you don’t have an ultimate goal in this thread…

I have already achieved my goal! You agree that naturalism is not empirically provable. You also agree that all that we can ever absolutely know is our intangible mental activity. Yet you maintain that our starting point is our physical bodies and that we start with the reality of our physical existence. You regard our common subjective experiences as the basis for our belief in one common physical reality but reject them as evidence for the objective reality of the mind.

You believe our intangible activities are not our starting point because our collective experience of physical reality is consistent. “Given this lack of evidence for extra-physical sources of consciousness we are rationally bound to assume that the source is ultimately physical.” So you believe our individual subjective experiences are not consistent enough to be evidence for objective mental reality. Your criterion is therefore the consistency of our perceptions and our inferences from those perceptions. This criterion is based on the assumption that what is perceived (physical objects) is the primary reality - despite your acknowledgement that physicalism (naturalism) is not empirically provable and that all that we can ever absolutely know is our intangible mental activity.

You assert that no evidence exists for another form of reality in which only a subset of people believe. Yet the vast majority of people on this planet believe in spiritual reality, in truth, goodness, justice, freedom, equality, innocence, guilt and responsibility - whereas you regard them as merely human concepts.You believe that human rights are not objective facts but a matter of definition, that free will is an illusion and that good and evil exist only in the mind - in direct contradiction of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the universal legal presumption of individual responsibility. The majority are sometimes mistaken but with an issue of such importance the onus is on you to explain why they are mistaken. If you are not prepared to stand up in court and state that you do not have free will or responsibility because “our thoughts originate within our brains as far as anybody can tell” your argument lacks conviction - and would lead to conviction if you had committed a crime!

 

[wanstronian]

I have already achieved my goal! You agree that naturalism is not empirically provable. You also agree that all that we can ever absolutely know is our intangible mental activity. Yet you maintain that our starting point is our physical bodies and that we start with the reality of our physical existence. You regard our common subjective experiences as the basis for our belief in one common physical reality but reject them as evidence for the objective reality of the mind.

You believe our intangible activities are not our starting point because our collective experience of physical reality is consistent. “Given this lack of evidence for extra-physical sources of consciousness we are rationally bound to assume that the source is ultimately physical.” So you believe our individual subjective experiences are not consistent enough to be evidence for objective mental reality. Your criterion is therefore the consistency of our perceptions and our inferences from those perceptions. This criterion is based on the assumption that what is perceived (physical objects) is the primary reality - despite your acknowledgement that physicalism (naturalism) is not empirically provable and that all that we can ever absolutely know is our intangible mental activity.

You assert that no evidence exists for another form of reality in which only a subset of people believe. Yet the vast majority of people on this planet believe in spiritual reality, in truth, goodness, justice, freedom, equality, innocence, guilt and responsibility - whereas you regard them as merely human concepts.You believe that human rights are not objective facts but a matter of definition, that free will is an illusion and that good and evil exist only in the mind - in direct contradiction of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the universal legal presumption of individual responsibility. The majority are sometimes mistaken but with an issue of such importance the onus is on you to explain why they are mistaken. If you are not prepared to stand up in court and state that you do not have free will or responsibility because “our thoughts originate within our brains as far as anybody can tell” your argument lacks conviction - and would lead to conviction if you had committed a crime!

Your extreme misinterpretation of my comments shows that either you are inacapable of understanding me, or that you are deliberately misrepresenting me to give your own position more strength. I suspect the latter.

This has happened too many times in debates with you.

 

[tonyrey]

Your extreme misinterpretation of my comments shows that either you are inacapable of understanding me, or that you are deliberately misrepresenting me to give your own position more strength. I suspect the latter.
This has happened too many times in debates with you.

I leave others to decide whether you are misguided or simply incapable of refuting my statements…

 

[Oreoracle]

I leave others to decide whether you are misguided or simply incapable of refuting my statements…

Ha! As if those are the only two options. What if others believe he is right? I wouldn’t invoke the crowd if I were you, because I don’t think you have the support of the majority.

 

[tonyrey]

Ha! As if those are the only two options. What if others believe he is right? I wouldn’t invoke the crowd if I were you, because I don’t think you have the support of the majority.

If you bothered to read my post you would be aware I stipulated that the majority may be mistaken but the onus is on the minority to explain why
the majority are mistaken.
Rather than merely state your opinion it would be more to the point to attempt to refute my statements…

 

[Oreoracle]

If you bothered to read my post you would be aware I stipulated that the majority may be mistaken but the onus is on the minority to explain why
the majority are mistaken.
Rather than merely state your opinion it would be more to the point to attempt to refute my statements…

I’m not going to try to speak for Wanstronian. If you want to make an opening statement (or statements) so that we can begin a discussion, then go ahead. If you think I’m going to be nearly as tolerant as Wanstronian was, though, then you are sadly mistaken. We’ve both been misrepresented by you multiple times, and I won’t stand for it.

So what is your opening argument/position/whatever?

 

[tonyrey]

Ha! As if those are the only two options. What if others believe he is right? I wouldn’t invoke the crowd if I were you, because I don’t think you have the support of the majority.

You don’t think the vast majority of people on this planet believe in spiritual reality, in truth, goodness, justice, freedom, equality, innocence and guilt - and accept the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the universal legal presumption of individual responsibility?
Rather than merely state your opinion it would be more to the point to justify your opinion and attempt to refute my statements…

 

[tonyrey]

We’ve both been misrepresented by you multiple times, and I won’t stand for it.

In that case you’d better sit down. It’s amusing and ironic you’re so indignant about my alleged misrepresentations. I thought you believe unfairness and injustice are merely subjective opinions and not objective facts!

 

[tonyrey]

Your extreme misinterpretation of my comments shows that either you are inacapable of understanding me, or that you are deliberately misrepresenting me to give your own position more strength.

Here is one example of my so-called misrepresentation:

So you believe you have no power of self-control and no control over your thoughts?

It’s the only rational conclusion in the absence of evidence of any other source of free will.

Clear evidence that you reject free will…

 

[wanstronian]

Here is one example of my so-called misrepresentation:
Clear evidence that you reject free will…

That’s just one of the comments I’ve made that you’ve got *almost *right. I didn’t say I completely reject it, just that there’s no evidence for its existence.

But as I said, that’s just one thing. Most of the other things I’ve said, you’ve misrepresented or argued a point on semantics that clearly were not intended. For example, the dichotomy you’ve ascribed to me: “You also agree that all that we can ever absolutely know is our intangible mental activity. Yet you maintain that our starting point is our physical bodies and that we start with the reality of our physical existence.” You’ve taken my extreme example - and it was pointed out to you that it was an extreme example and not my position at all - and compared it to what I did say was my position, then tried to colour me ambivalent. It’s just dishonest of you, and I have to say, typical of your methods.

Anyway, that’s it for me on this thread now. I’m tired of having to clarify every warped interpretation of my posts. Have a nice evening.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s just one of the comments I’ve made that you’ve got *almost *right. I didn’t say I completely reject it, just that there’s no evidence for its existence.

That is a fine example of how you wriggle out of a corner. You attack me for misrepresenting you but you constantly make it abundantly clear you regard human beings as no more than biological machines - without free will.

But as I said, that’s just one thing. Most of the other things I’ve said, you’ve misrepresented or argued a point on semantics that clearly were not intended. For example, the dichotomy you’ve ascribed to me: “You also agree that all that we can ever absolutely know is our intangible mental activity. Yet you maintain that our starting point is our physical bodies and that we start with the reality of our physical existence.” You’ve taken my extreme example - and it was pointed out to you that it was an extreme example and not my position at all - and compared it to what I did say was my position, then tried to colour me ambivalent.

I fail to understand why you regard it as an “extreme example”. Either it is true or false. Either all we absolutely know is our intangible mental activity.or it is not*. *Either our starting point is our physical bodies or it is not. The two positions are incompatible. But I shall leave it there and, as always, leave others to decide.

It’s just dishonest of you, and I have to say, typical of your methods.

You regard me as typically dishonest. I regard you as incapable of recognising your inconsistencies or unwilling to admit to them - without attributing to you any base motives. We disagree - but it’s not the end of the world…