ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th January 2019, 11:09 PM   #121
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Caused by the event of a person forming an intention and taking action.
Yes, but that does not come prior to the act of free will but is included in it. Free will is the cause and the effect simultaneously.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 11:11 PM   #122
SusanB-M1
Incurable Optimist
 
SusanB-M1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,612
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Yes, I know that creating arguments for God isn't practical, but I can't seem to let go of the part of me that wants to know what existence is about.
Existence is not "about" anything, it just is. Once you face the fact that there is no reason or purpose apart from those we choose anddecide on for ourselves, then things become clear and sensible.
SusanB-M1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 11:14 PM   #123
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Also, plug the definitions into premise 1, you get

Then ask, does something brought about by free will have a prior cause?

If yes, then it becomes, by the definition, determinism. If no, then it becomes, by the definition, indeterminism.
A free act has the cause and effect happen simultaneously. Also, with determinism the cause is external (so it must be caused by something outside of it) but with free will the cause is internal.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 11:21 PM   #124
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
And of course there is the fact that "free will" as we experience and observe it in the world is best explained as the higher level description of the combined action of lower level physical events.
You can't have free will that originates from a physical substance. Physical substances are ultimately inanimate and inanimate things have no minds or will and can not initiate events. Free will must come from a person who is not reducible to anything else.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 11:25 PM   #125
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
There is also this problem: are you sure the universe 'begun' ? It's possible it was always here.

Also .. if there was God before universe, could we really say there it was 'before' universe ? Isn't God part of universe ? Doesn't universe mean 'all that is' ?
Yes, if you mean the universe is all there is, then I would agree that the universe never came into existence. But if what you mean by universe is the structures and phenomena we see today: galaxies, planets, stars, then all that came into being. So in a sense, a God can exist before THAT. But I would rather say that God existed in a timeless state before time began.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 11:29 PM   #126
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Can you show me why?
You can't have a free will event unless you already have a mind cabaple of taking action.

And you have to have that mind first form an intention.


Quote:
The random event is ruled out due to incoherency.
Again, you can't just say something is incoherent, you have to show that it is.

Quote:

Can you show me how?
Something indeterministic is something not deterministic.

So if free will is neither deterministic nor indeterministic then it is not deterministic and not not deterministic.

The "nots" cancel out so free will would be both not deterministic and deterministic.

Now *that's" incoherent.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 28th January 2019 at 12:08 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 11:53 PM   #127
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I'm going to build on the points raised by psionl0 and Robin (good to see you posting again, by the way).

Determinism and indeterminism is already a dilemma. Free will cannot be a third option. Whatever free will is, it must either is or is not deterministic.
Yes, indeterminism sounds like free will. But what I meant by indeterminism is something like randomness, or events without causes. Indeterminism/randomness would be like a cup of water falling over for no reason. Free will, however, has a cause, that being a person and their will. This is different from determinism because an event brought about by determinism is an event brought about by another event, not a person or their will.

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Your "clarification" regarding the nature of determinism and free will belies a great deal of confusion. Take a simple deterministic event:

A rain drop lands on my forehead.
What are the factors that led to this event?

That question most certainly has an answer.

Now for the free will version.

I choose to eat a sandwich for lunch.
What are the factors that led to this choice?

Even if you have an extremely liberal view of free will, this question still has an answer: I was getting hungry. I like sandwiches a lot. This restaurant had some good reviews, etc.

It's extremely difficult to deny that events affect our choices, and that choices are themselves just a different type of event.
Those are INFLUENCES. They do not determine free will.

It's not free will if your hunger triggers something in you and then that causes you to act deterministically.

The whole point of free will is that it is not caused externally but caused internally. It is self-determining.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 11:56 PM   #128
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Yes, determinism does mean "only one possible outcome" but to be determined there must be a prior event that determines the current one. I am just emphasizing the cause aspect of determinism because that is where the argument focuses.
There is nothing at all in the definition of "deterministic" which implies that the determinant must have a cause.

So if you have "A deterministically caused B", that does not imply that A has a cause, nor does it imply that if A has a cause then it must have been a deterministic cause.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 12:11 AM   #129
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Yes, but that does not come prior to the act of free will but is included in it. Free will is the cause and the effect simultaneously.
An intention does not precede a free will action?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 12:12 AM   #130
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I think maybe this is begging the question. Once you include "free will" in your premise, you are already positing dualism. If you are already positing dualism, you are adding magic to the mix. We'd say an amoeba does not have free will, right? Then where in the process of evolution did free will develop, and what caused that free will?

So you start your reasoning off with the premise that magic exists.

It's not that I find materialism to be such an appealing philosophy, but it's more coherent than saying free will occurred spontaneously at some point in evolution.
Take a dead body. A dead body is pretty much just an inanimate object. While alive it is no different, just animated by free will. However, because the body can be considered inanimate, this means that it has no mind or will just as a rock has no mind or will. Therefore, physical substance can't have free will. Rather, it must be the person who has free will. Meaning, the person is not reduced to anything simpler or any kind of physical substance. It is ultimately a person. This means that free will can not be "evolved" because what evolution evolves are bodies which are just physical objects. So you'd need something like a soul for free will. This is where we run into problems however. I don't know what kind of deal the soul is, but I'm thinking that the soul is fundamentally a person rather than a substance. How that works, I'll have to get back to you on.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 01:39 AM   #131
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,768
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Take a dead body. A dead body is pretty much just an inanimate object. While alive it is no different, just animated by free will. However, because the body can be considered inanimate, this means that it has no mind or will just as a rock has no mind or will. Therefore, physical substance can't have free will. Rather, it must be the person who has free will. Meaning, the person is not reduced to anything simpler or any kind of physical substance. It is ultimately a person. This means that free will can not be "evolved" because what evolution evolves are bodies which are just physical objects. So you'd need something like a soul for free will. This is where we run into problems however. I don't know what kind of deal the soul is, but I'm thinking that the soul is fundamentally a person rather than a substance. How that works, I'll have to get back to you on.
If we assume for the moment that free will exists and that your definition if same holds water, the logic above still doesn’t work, as it’s an emergent property of being a live. Throwing a soul in there is a bit of a non sequitur...
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 01:47 AM   #132
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Look up radioactive isotopes and how they decay, especially their half lives.
That point is addressed in premise 5 of the argument.

Indeterminism means "event without a cause" and a cause is a mechanism. How can event or state be arrived at with no mechanism? It's pretty much akin to saying it can't happen.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 02:04 AM   #133
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I am going to disagree with 1, 2 and possibly 3. And no doubt the rest as well.

1. You have not shown that these are the only 3 causes. And you have not shown that free will exists separate to determinism or indeterminism as a thing which can cause anything.
Well, you're correct about that. I may come up with an argument that shows that those are the only 3 possibilities, but until then I invite you to try to come up with a way that events could happen that is not one of those three ways.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
2. I am not sure this is proven as yet. I also query whether we can talk about the universe coming into existence if time did not exist prior to the universe - in that case there is no time at which the universe did not exist.
I may also come up with an argument for that as well

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
3. Again, to me an event is something that is temporal. It is a thing which happens at a specific point in time. To be an event then it has to be discrete and this requires that there is a time when it is happening and a time before and after when it is no longer happening. I am not sure you have shown this to be the case.
Regardless of whether the there was no time before the universe, the universe must still have began with free will.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 02:06 AM   #134
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,903
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
That point is addressed in premise 5 of the argument.

Indeterminism means "event without a cause" and a cause is a mechanism. How can event or state be arrived at with no mechanism? It's pretty much akin to saying it can't happen.
Please explain the mechanism which causes one uranium atom to spit out an alpha particle whilst the atom next to it does not, even though nothing happens to the first atom that doesn't happen to the second.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 02:12 AM   #135
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
You should clarify here. Do you mean to say that when you say "determinism" in the first premise, you mean the doctrine Determinism?

That would leave out quite a lot. When we say such-and-such event is deterministic we do not usually mean to imply that so is every other event.

You will quite often see the usage that a certain system is deterministic and another system is indeterministic, for example "We show adequacy theorems relating the first semantics to deterministic schedulers, and the second semantics to probabilistic schedulers."

Such a usage cannot relate to a doctrine that everthing is the inevitable consequence of an antecedent state of affairs.

So if "determinism" in your P1 refers to the doctrine of Determinism, then we have another possibility, that it occurred deterministically (where this usage does not refer to any doctrine), and yet another that it occurred indeterministically (again not referring to any doctrine).

So if you say "such-and-such event occurred deterministically" then there is no implication of an infinite regress, nullifying your P4.
I'm sorry, I don't follow, how exactly is my fourth premise nullified?

Originally Posted by Robin View Post
And, just by the way, there is no intrinsic impossibility involved in an infinite regress. Not my favourite option, but not ruled out a priori.
Is it not true that there is no largest number? How then can infinity be actualized?
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 02:14 AM   #136
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,097
Let's take these two together:

Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Yes, determinism does mean "only one possible outcome" but to be determined there must be a prior event that determines the current one. I am just emphasizing the cause aspect of determinism because that is where the argument focuses.
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
That point is addressed in premise 5 of the argument.

Indeterminism means "event without a cause" and a cause is a mechanism. How can event or state be arrived at with no mechanism? It's pretty much akin to saying it can't happen.
You realize that you just disproved your whole setup, ad-absurdum style, right? That is, still assuming you're not going for an "I don't understand QM, therefore it doesn't exist" argument, a la Pixie Of Key.

The fact of the matter is that there are events -- in fact, just about everything in QM -- that DO have an underlying mechanism, but the result is fundamentally non-deterministic. There's a reason I linked to quantum indeterminacy earlier in the thread. Not only there is no way to actually make those deterministic, but you're fundamentally prevented from even getting past a degree of accuracy, no matter how cleverly roundabout you go about it. E.g., if you try to increase the accuracy of measuring where a particle is and what it's doing, by also measuring the effect on another one, you find that now you're more limited in measuring the second one too.

But anyway, there is fundamentally no way to make quantum events deterministic, even though they do have well understood underlying mechanisms.

And anyway, the problem is that your arbitrary dividing nature into those categories is in effect denying reality. And an argument based on being just disconnected from reality isn't taking you very far.


But generally, even allowing for a limited time on your part and all, I would suggest you actually read the answers so far instead launching into more of the same just repeating the same nonsense over and over again. We're not in "The Hunting Of The Snark", and you're not the bellman. A piece of nonsense doesn't become true if you repeat it three times or more.

So, yeah, I would at the very least suggest reading up a bit on QM before launching into more nonsense argumentation that boils down to it being either deterministic, or impossible.

And I would also suggest reading the Kalam cosmological argument, and making sure that you actually HAVE an own argument worth discussing. Because so far you're just doing some unimpressive handwaving around that broken argument, which really isn't impressing anyone around here, by just renaming its stuff. All you've done so far was literally take the "caused" and "uncaused" categories that one uses, and renamed it to "deterministic" and "free will" (but only for God), plus a nonsense third category which you argue is outright impossible. So basically that one is there as, err... what? Smoke screen so it's not that obvious that you're just rehashing Kalam with two words changed?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 02:27 AM   #137
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I'm sorry, I don't follow, how exactly is my fourth premise nullified?
Just as I said. Did you not understand?


Are you saying that your P4 holds even if a deterministic event does not imply an infinite regress?

Quote:
Is it not true that there is no largest number? How then can infinity be actualized?
Not sure exactly what you think the problem is there.

The two things seem perfectly consistent to me. Can you demonstrate the inconsistency?

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 02:27 AM   #138
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Next you need to provide some reasoning behind the assertion that indeterminism is "incoherent".
Things that are coherent are self-consistent. Things that are not coherent are self contradictory. If an event has no means of happening, yet happens that is self-contradictory.

Originally Posted by Robin View Post
As far as I know we have mathematically consistent descriptions of indeterministic systems and we could not do that if the concept was incoherent.
It may work out mathematically, but what works mathematically doesn't always work in physical reality.

Originally Posted by Robin View Post
If you say that "having no antecedents" is incoherent then you commit yourself to asserting that there is the kind of infinite regress you said rules out determinism.
How?

Originally Posted by Robin View Post
On the other hand if you say that "there being more than one possible next state" is incoherent then you rule out free will.
I said that? I don't remember saying that. If I did then I now disagree with it.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 02:40 AM   #139
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It's even simpler than that. There are several pieces of electronics in the computer he used to write that silliness, that wouldn't work if quantum randomness wasn't actually working very well, or if we were unable to work with that kind of concept. Probably the easiest to explain is the Zener diode in the power supply. It works and can regulate voltage BECAUSE at a certain point an electron may have enough energy to go right over the edge of the potential well, OR may be already on the other side, and we fundamentally can't know which. It's really a device designed around Heisenberg's uncertainty, and which only works BECAUSE of that uncertainty.
Reality must obey logic. Experience can not contradict a correct formulation of logic, as both are reality. I have some of the logic (at least in my opinion) but I'm skeptical of some experiments built to demonstrate quantum randomness or doing so as a byproduct since they seem to be say that reality essentially contradicts itself. Reality must be entirely self-consistent. I think that these experiments are missing something.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 02:48 AM   #140
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, just to pick on that one too, there's an even more perverse idiocy in such 'rejecting infinite regress' arguments. Namely sneaking in the false dichotomy that it's either:

A) infinite regress, OR
B) NO regress, we're the first and only step.

But here's the exact same reasoning applied to making a new human instead of a new universe. We can either have:

A) human parents all the way back to infinity, OR
B) I'm the first human ever.

In reality, it can go back a finite amount of time before you don't even have life any more, much less yet another regression. Really, that's what the whole 'we must be the first created universe, or it's infinite regress' silliness in a nutshell.

Now there are moments where regress isn't a valid explanation, because it just moves the same woowoo one step back. But that's not the same thing as making us God's first creation the only reasonable alternative, nor automatically the right one.
The difference between the infinite regress of humans and the infinite regress of deterministic events is that there is something in deterministic events that necessitates another event. But in the case of an infinite regress of humans, a rule isn't usually laid down that says "every human must come from another human." If so, then you'd have an actual infinite regress. But because there is nothing that necessitates a human or a life form from coming from something other than another human, you leave the option open for it coming from inorganic or non-biological substances.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 02:54 AM   #141
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Forgive me if I missed it but did anyone consider the "free will, determinism and indeterminism" involved in the bringing into existence of God?
If you ask who brought God into existence or what, then you're setting yourself up for an infinite regress. The infinite regress must ultimately terminate in something that is eternal.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 02:58 AM   #142
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,903
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
If you ask who brought God into existence or what, then you're setting yourself up for an infinite regress. The infinite regress must ultimately terminate in something that is eternal.
If so then Occam's Razor says that the universe/multiverse is that "something eternal".
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:04 AM   #143
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
And this is?
Determinism as it pertains to this argument I will define as "events caused by external and prior causes." I know that determinism really means that things can only happen one way and no other way, but by determinism I mean mechanical processes in nature in general. I emphasize the definition I gave to show its relevancy to the argument.

By indeterminism I mean events without a cause, or events happening erratically according to no causal pattern.

And by free will I mean self-caused events. This distinguishes itself from determinism because deterministic events are externally caused while free will is internally caused. And it distinguishes itself from indeterminism because instead of having no cause, it is caused by an agent.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:04 AM   #144
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I don't remember saying that. If I did then I now disagree with it.
We need to sort out these terms

Deterministic means there is exactly one possible next state.

Indeterministic means there is more than one possible next state, and you have now agreed that this is coherent.

You seem to be using "indeterministic" to mean "uncaused" which is not what it means.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:23 AM   #145
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post



How?
If "having no antecents" is incoherent then everything must have at least one antecedent.

If everything has at least one antecedent then, by definition you have an infinite regress.


Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:37 AM   #146
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Oh there you are Wonder. I thought someone said you were out to lunch.


Would you give some consideration to the question regarding the "free will, determinism and indeterminism" involved in the bringing into existence of God?

Thanks.
I define causation by determinism as external causation. Under external causation, events are caused by something outside themselves. Because this applies to every event, no event is able to serve as a beginning to all other deterministic events, instead forming an infinite regress which I argue is impossible based on the impossibility of actualizing infinity (you can not have a largest number). Therefore, God can not be brought about by this means.

Indeterminism I define as randomness, or events having no cause. I rule this out because it amounts to events happening without a mechanism, which in turn just amounts to a contradiction. So, God can not come about through indeterminism.

This leaves free will as the thing you must first bring events about with and since everything prior to this must come about through events, that makes (at least one of the first things as far as I know) the first thing to exist a being with free will.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:45 AM   #147
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,754
Your argument amounts to "Everything has to be caused, except for God. Therefore God is real and also the creator of the Universe"
Not only does your conclusion not follow from your premise, you don't have any evidence for your premise either.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:49 AM   #148
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
You're just making a hash of things.

There is determinacy - this covers all things that are determined. There is indeterminacy - this covers all things that are not determined. That's it. You've now covered every possibility. There is no room for a third option. It's like saying that there are numbers which are positive, numbers which are not positive, and the number 8. The first two completely exhaust every possibility. The third is just a thing that you tacked on in order to make your conclusion work.

That's not logic. That's just nonsense.
The dichotomy of determinism and indeterminism sounds like a true dichotomy. But if you look at the definitions, you'll see that there might be more than just those two.

Free will is not determinism. 1.) Because free will gives you options. Determinism doesn't give you options. 2.) Determinism is externally caused, think of a cue hitting a billiard ball and causing it to move. The billiard ball does not move itself but is moved by something external to it (the cue). Free will is internally caused, the cause and the effect are the same to some extent.

Free will is not indeterminism. I define indeterminism as an event without a cause, free will doesn't not have a cause, it's cause is the person.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:52 AM   #149
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
If "having no antecents" is incoherent then everything must have at least one antecedent.

If everything has at least one antecedent then, by definition you have an infinite regress.


Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
Or perhaps a circularity.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:57 AM   #150
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Determinism is externally caused, think of a cue hitting a billiard ball and causing it to move. The billiard ball does not move itself but is moved by something external to it (the cue)
Not so, the new momentum is a function of both the mass shape and velocity of the cue as well as the mass shape and velocity of the ball itself.


Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:00 AM   #151
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
And again, can you explain why an actual infinity would require there to be a largest number?

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:12 AM   #152
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,097
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
The dichotomy of determinism and indeterminism sounds like a true dichotomy. But if you look at the definitions, you'll see that there might be more than just those two.

Free will is not determinism. 1.) Because free will gives you options. Determinism doesn't give you options. 2.) Determinism is externally caused, think of a cue hitting a billiard ball and causing it to move. The billiard ball does not move itself but is moved by something external to it (the cue). Free will is internally caused, the cause and the effect are the same to some extent.

Free will is not indeterminism. I define indeterminism as an event without a cause, free will doesn't not have a cause, it's cause is the person.
If your argument requires you to redefine words, that's your cue that it's nonsense.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:13 AM   #153
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,808
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Well, you're correct about that. I may come up with an argument that shows that those are the only 3 possibilities, but until then I invite you to try to come up with a way that events could happen that is not one of those three ways.
That's not how arguments work. You need to demonstrate that you are correct otherwise it is simply an argument from ignorance

Quote:

I may also come up with an argument for that as well
Well if you don't then your argument is not proven

Quote:
Regardless of whether the there was no time before the universe, the universe must still have began with free will.
This is disingenuous. You have not shown that your premises are true and yet handwave away that fact and simply assert that your conclusion is correct.

You haven't even shown that free will exists yet.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:17 AM   #154
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
Also, you could substitute any event into this argument and, if sound, it would prove that a tsunami or an earthquake must have been caused by an act of free will.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:25 AM   #155
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Your whole argument seems to be a case of "I don't understand A, B, C and D, therefore it must have been E, F, G and H instead", which is as broken an argument as it gets. It's in fact exactly on par intellectually with Pixie Of Key's insisting that there is no space curvature because he doesn't understand it and can't visualize empty space being curved.

But let's talk cosmology, because that's the chief failure there. In fact, there are several cosmology explanations -- including our universe being just the inside of a ridiculously giant black hole -- but as far as the time axis goes, there are basically two possibilities:

1. Space and TIME began at the big bang

2. Actually the history of our universe goes back all the way to minus infinity time, just space gets asymptotically more compressed the farther back you go. The big bang would be just the point at which it had expanded past the point where it gets, shall we say, really interesting.

Note that explanation #2 doesn't involve a beginning at all, since the universe always existed in that explanation.

Now look at #1, though. In that version, the universe also "ALWAYS" existed. At any time t that actually existed, so did the universe. There is no t1 when the universe didn't exist, and a t2 when now it does, so you can't actually squeeze in a creator between t1 and t2. Because that interval of time itself didn't exist.

So, yeah, both versions equally have the universe "always" existing. Where they differ is just how far back does "always" go.
Personally, I think things make more sense if you think of existence first being in a timeless state, although I don't know what timelessness would be like.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:33 AM   #156
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
You have stayed this several times. I do not see where you have proven it. Where exactly is the logical contradiction that proves it impossible?
Indeterminacy is events happening without a cause. Without a cause there is no mechanism to REACH the event. How can something happen if there is no mechanism to make it happen? Right now, I don't know how to make it more self-evident than that. This is pretty much self-evident if you understand it. Maybe later I'll come up with something, but just think about the question "how can something happen if there is no mechanism for it to happen?"
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:44 AM   #157
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Doesn't a god have the same problem? If it has no beginning, it must exist for an infinite duration, and then decide to create the universe.
I know this may seem like nonsense to you, but I would say that existence was first timeless before there was time and so God existed timelessly and not for an infinite period of time which leads to contradictions.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:52 AM   #158
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
You continue to claim this, but you have provided nothing to justify the separation. Are persons not part of nature? Does a dog have free will? What about an amoeba? What about ammonium chloride?

Since you have attributed free will to god, and god is not a person, what then is god?
I don't remember saying God is not a person, but I'll say it now that I believe God is a person. And by person I don't mean a human, but rather a being with a mind and free will. What a person is, I'm not entirely sure, but persons are not contained in the body and are not reducible to physical or ethereal substances. A person is not reducible to anything else. People are most fundamentally people.

I say a person is not reducible a substance because substances ultimately have no personhood, they are basically inanimate objects and therefore incapable of having free will.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 05:04 AM   #159
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
1. There are three ways that events come about in the world: free will, determinism and indeterminism.

2. Krakatoa erupted.

3.The eruption of Krakatoa is an event.

4. The eruption of Krakatoa can not be due to determinism. (This is because every deterministic event requires a prior event to bring it about and that event requires another event and so on to infinity. A deterministic system can not just initiate action out of nowhere or from a state of rest.)

5. The eruption of Krakatoa can't be due to indeterminism (Since the macroscopic world is largely deterministic rather than indeterministic, what I'm referring to with this premise is the quantum or sub-atomic world. The reason the quantum world can not be indeterministic is because indeterminacy is incoherent and incoherent things can not exist. This turns quantum indeterminacy into determinism since it has causes rather than not having causes and since determinacy has already been ruled out as causing the eruption of Krakatoa, so too is the option of the Krakatoa from quantum mechanical events ruled out.)

6. Therefore, Krakatoa must have erupted through an act of free-will.(This is because there are only three ways events can happen and because determinism and determinism are insufficient, the only other thing that can cause Krakatoa to erupt is free will. Free will works because it avoids the problem of determinacy (always needing prior events) by being able to begin a chain of events without needing a prior event.)

7. Only beings have free will. (Free will requires a mind in order to judge various options and choose)

8. Therefore, a being is responsible for the eruption of Krakatoa. (Since this description matches the idea of God, we can call this being God. But if not God then the being who caused Krakatoa to erupt.



Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 06:29 AM   #160
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,380
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Take a dead body. A dead body is pretty much just an inanimate object. While alive it is no different, just animated by free will. However, because the body can be considered inanimate, this means that it has no mind or will just as a rock has no mind or will. Therefore, physical substance can't have free will. Rather, it must be the person who has free will. Meaning, the person is not reduced to anything simpler or any kind of physical substance. It is ultimately a person. This means that free will can not be "evolved" because what evolution evolves are bodies which are just physical objects. So you'd need something like a soul for free will. This is where we run into problems however. I don't know what kind of deal the soul is, but I'm thinking that the soul is fundamentally a person rather than a substance. How that works, I'll have to get back to you on.

So, um, you think the only difference between a dead body and a living one is that the living one has free will? A living body takes in sugars to burn for fuel and oxygen in which to burn them. Living brain cells, fueled with such energy, release chemicals that communicate with other brain cells to release chemicals themselves. Living muscle cells can expand or contract, Living cells in the eye can react to patterns of light and transmit those reactions to the brain. Pancreatic cells produce stomach acid to break down food.

All those things are differences between living people and dead ones. You're essentially arguing that Volkswagens cannot possibly be driven on roads because some Volkswagens are damaged in junkyards and don't run. Thus, running Volkswagens have free will. That's your argument - volkswagens have free will.



Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Free will is not indeterminism. I define indeterminism as an event without a cause, free will doesn't not have a cause, it's cause is the person.

Can you point to one observable event anywhere at all that demonstrates free will without the presence of a physical person undertaking physical processes?

And remember, you can't say "God creating the universe" as an example of free will, because that's the thing you're trying to prove. If that's your only example of free will that is not tied to a physical body, then you're just assuming the truth of your own conclusion. And that is not logical.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.