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 28th January 2019, 08:00 PM   #201
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
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.
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that a living body is no better than a dead one when it comes to free will. The they both essentially lack personhood due to just being a substance like a rock. That free will must ultimately come from things that are people and that thus, to have free will a body must have a soul.






Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
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 don't know of any way to prove the existence of free will. The best I have to offer right now is that if there's no other way for a series of events to get started other than the use of something that sounds a lot like free will, then free will or something like it must exist.
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, 08:03 PM   #202
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I've highlighted the two incompatible words which make this a nonsensical statement.
Yes, it's hard to think outside of time. You can't even say before time existed because it uses the word before. I wouldn't know how to even say it and still maintain timelessness.
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, 08:04 PM   #203
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
How can a being existing timelessly exercise free will?

If there is free will there is willful effect. If there is effect there is change. If there is change there is time. Which contradicts a condition of timeless existence.
Yes, if timelessness exists, then it is very hard for me to comprehend.
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, 08:18 PM   #204
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
No that's backwards.

Logic is a way we describe our observations of how reality works. If reality does not appear to obey logic then logic can be wrong.

Also, there is no reason to think that logic applies to the creation of the universe since logic is an observation of how the universe goes, not necessarily how a 'not a universe' goes.
When something is logical it is self-consistent. It should be self-evident that things that are self-contradictory have no way of existing. I don't know how to make it more self-evident than that. The universe must be entirely self-consistent, and since this self-consistency is what is logical, then you could say that reality can't not be logical. And I'm talking the correct logic, not when one falsely formulates a logical relation.
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, 08:19 PM   #205
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
As far as we know minds need brains. Minds can only exist in the presence of physical matter. Therefore there cannot be minds that exist prior to the existence of physical matter.
How a mind can exist without a brain is a tough problem and may take a while to figure out.
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, 08:21 PM   #206
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
It seems to come down to:

1. Every event needs a cause.

2. The exercise of free will is an event that does not need a cause.

Seems logically inconsistent to me.
Free will is an event 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, 08:27 PM   #207
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Again, you need to demonstrate this contradiction.

In order to demonstrate the contradiction you need to show that some premise results in "P and not P"

You seem to be confusing "it is counter-intuitive" with "it is illogical"
When I say reality must obey logic, what I'm saying is is that reality must be self-consistent, where illogical amounts to self-contradiction.

Here are some self-contradictory ideas:

1. A square circle.
2. A married bachelor.
3. The largest number.
4. A ball that is all white and all black at the same time.
5. Something that is infinitely large which also has a shape.
6. A straight line that is not the shortest path between two points.
7. A line that is the longest path between two points.

Just by examining these ideas you can see that they are self-contradictory, hence incoherent, and therefore impossible to actualize. Meaning reality must be entirely self-consistent/logical.
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, 08:33 PM   #208
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
So free will are events that cause themselves! Like the universe popping into existence because it popped into existence.



So those events are not caused by themselves. You need a soul or god to cause them. Doesn't this contradict the first statement?
I was speaking loosely, but an agent causes the event.
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 29th January 2019, 01:46 AM   #209
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,767
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
When I say reality must obey logic, what I'm saying is is that reality must be self-consistent, where illogical amounts to self-contradiction.

Here are some self-contradictory ideas:

1. A square circle.
2. A married bachelor.
3. The largest number.
4. A ball that is all white and all black at the same time.
5. Something that is infinitely large which also has a shape.
6. A straight line that is not the shortest path between two points.
7. A line that is the longest path between two points.

Just by examining these ideas you can see that they are self-contradictory, hence incoherent, and therefore impossible to actualize. Meaning reality must be entirely self-consistent/logical.
No. 6 is incorrect. Rhumb Line
__________________
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 29th January 2019, 05:48 AM   #210
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,202
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
When I say reality must obey logic, what I'm saying is is that reality must be self-consistent, where illogical amounts to self-contradiction.

Here are some self-contradictory ideas:

1. A square circle.
2. A married bachelor.
3. The largest number.
4. A ball that is all white and all black at the same time.
5. Something that is infinitely large which also has a shape.
6. A straight line that is not the shortest path between two points.
7. A line that is the longest path between two points.

Just by examining these ideas you can see that they are self-contradictory, hence incoherent, and therefore impossible to actualize. Meaning reality must be entirely self-consistent/logical.
Yes, just as I showed you your premise one led to a contradiction.

But show how indeterminism leads to a contradiction.
__________________
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 29th January 2019, 07:20 AM   #211
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,345
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
How a mind can exist without a brain is a tough problem and may take a while to figure out.
i notice something about the way you reason:

- When someone points out something that seems illogical or impossible in your argument (such as the above) you describe it as a problem that will be figured out
- When you find something to be illogical or impossible you assume it must be so and therefore that the opposite must be true.

Does this seem like a reasonable way to arrive at sound conclusions to you?

So far you have introduced a host of things that are unlikely, unproven and not reasonable.

You assert that free will requires a soul and yet neither free will nor the soul have been shown to exist.
__________________
"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 29th January 2019, 07:21 AM   #212
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,345
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Free will is an event caused by an agent.
How does the agent cause the event? And how does the agent cause the cause of the event? And how does the agent cause the cause of the cause of the event?
__________________
"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 29th January 2019, 07:59 AM   #213
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I think it just seems like they don't have a cause.

Mechanisms are the means by which events are actualized. Nothing can come to be without a mechanism that underlies it and makes it possible. To say that an event doesn't have a cause is to say that it doesn't have an underlying mechanism that allows it to happen. How can an event occur if you take away the very means for it to occur? To say that there is no mechanism for how it happens (a cause) you're saying that there is no way for it to happen.

This may sound like a cop out, but it's not, the being is eternal.
I think you contradicted yourself there. If nothing can come about without a cause, an eternal entity cannot exist.

Your first point might be right, your second cannot be by your own logic.
__________________
"I don't think I'm getting the most out of my computer. I turn it on... and use it as a light." - Harry Hill
baron 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 29th January 2019, 09:57 AM   #214
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,658
IF your "god" caused the universe at some point, then there must have been a point where god had not yet caused the universe. There must also be a point before that, and before that, onwards to infinite regress. If god is subject to infinite regress, yet can still act, then eternal universes are not contradicted by infinite regress.

Saying god is "outside time" or "timeless" is just an apologetic to try to shoehorn a solution into a problem you created.
This particular instantiation of a universe could have popped into existence within a larger cosmos container, even causelessly. As you cannot rule that out, your necessary god......is not "necessary".
The Sparrow 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 29th January 2019, 10:26 AM   #215
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that a living body is no better than a dead one when it comes to free will. The they both essentially lack personhood due to just being a substance like a rock. That free will must ultimately come from things that are people and that thus, to have free will a body must have a soul.
Apply fairy dust until self/soul/freewill emerges
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 29th January 2019, 01:14 PM   #216
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,114
Originally Posted by baron View Post
A complex being would be low entropy, not high.
Yes, you're right. I pretty much always get that mixed up.

The Norseman 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 29th January 2019, 01:31 PM   #217
8enotto
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 301
Wonder 234, to make your reasoning solid go back beyond the first point.

Prove god/eternal being

Without this factually evidenced the rest cannot stand. It is the foundation of everything you want to prove.
8enotto 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 29th January 2019, 03:33 PM   #218
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,359
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Wonder 234, to make your reasoning solid go back beyond the first point.

Prove god/eternal being

Without this factually evidenced the rest cannot stand. It is the foundation of everything you want to prove.
To be fair, this entire thread is an attempt to do exactly that.
arthwollipot 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 29th January 2019, 04:28 PM   #219
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,202
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
To be fair, this entire thread is an attempt to do exactly that.
Yes. If it was demonstrated that the best explanation for the existence of the Universe was an act of free will then that would also be a demonstration of the existence of a universe creating intelligence.

I have seen a few attempts to do this, none even remotely convincing.

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 29th January 2019, 04:37 PM   #220
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,555
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Yes. If it was demonstrated that the best explanation for the existence of the Universe was an act of free will then that would also be a demonstration of the existence of a universe creating intelligence.

I have seen a few attempts to do this, none even remotely convincing.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk

And then we have the existence of an intelligence creating the intelligence and an intelligence creat ............

So deftly side stepped by our Wonder.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 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 29th January 2019, 04:38 PM   #221
8enotto
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 301
So to use the cart and the horse analogy .


We see a cart. A horse must also be present somewhere close.

Unless the cart was brought by a truck or it had been made recently as lawn decor and no horses were ever required to be near it.

But we should choose to ignore all but one option?
8enotto 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 29th January 2019, 05:07 PM   #222
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,202
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
And then we have the existence of an intelligence creating the intelligence and an intelligence creat ............



So deftly side stepped by our Wonder.
I see no problem with the idea that there could be something that exists but never began to exist.

Even under materialism something like that is probably the best explanation.

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 2nd February 2019, 04:43 PM   #223
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
It's clear that this argument is too problematic to prove anything. I'll set it aside.
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 2nd February 2019, 11:39 PM   #224
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31░57'S 115░57'E
Posts: 13,888
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
It's clear that this argument is too problematic to prove anything. I'll set it aside.
This is what happens when you try to use logic or science to prove a religious proposition.

It it were that easy then you wouldn't need faith.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 3rd February 2019, 07:43 AM   #225
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,628
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
How a mind can exist without a brain is a tough problem and may take a while to figure out.
Why not consider that the "mind" is simply a product of what the brain does? Why conclude minds and brains aren't the same thing?
Craig4 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 3rd February 2019, 07:54 AM   #226
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
It's clear that this argument is too problematic to prove anything. I'll set it aside.
I assume that you are setting aside only this particular argument, not the conclusion.
jrhowell 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 3rd February 2019, 08:00 AM   #227
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Yes, you're right. I pretty much always get that mixed up.

So do I, I had to double-check.
__________________
"I don't think I'm getting the most out of my computer. I turn it on... and use it as a light." - Harry Hill
baron 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 3rd February 2019, 08:11 AM   #228
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,769
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
How a mind can exist without a brain is a tough problem and may take a while to figure out.
When you have an example of a mind existing without a brain then it can be something we can try and work out.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 3rd February 2019, 09:09 AM   #229
Scorpion
Graduate Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,417
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
How a mind can exist without a brain is a tough problem and may take a while to figure out.
Occult theology teaches we have several higher bodies and the soul and consciousness originate in the highest body. The soul body is a formless bubble of divine energy sealed off from the Godhead. Like a bubble in the ocean.
There are also the mental and astral bodies, and the etheric counterpart which channels consciousness down into the brain through the chakras, or energy centres.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion 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 3rd February 2019, 09:29 AM   #230
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,628
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
It's clear that this argument is too problematic to prove anything. I'll set it aside.
What does that tell you about your conclusion?
Craig4 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 3rd February 2019, 09:33 AM   #231
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,658
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Occult theology teaches we have several higher bodies and the soul and consciousness originate in the highest body. The soul body is a formless bubble of divine energy sealed off from the Godhead. Like a bubble in the ocean.
There are also the mental and astral bodies, and the etheric counterpart which channels consciousness down into the brain through the chakras, or energy centres.
Evidence? Still waiting.
The Sparrow 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 3rd February 2019, 02:27 PM   #232
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,492
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Occult theology teaches we have several higher bodies and the soul and consciousness originate in the highest body. The soul body is a formless bubble of divine energy sealed off from the Godhead. Like a bubble in the ocean.
There are also the mental and astral bodies, and the etheric counterpart which channels consciousness down into the brain through the chakras, or energy centres.

It also teaches (although one has to dig a little deeper into the material to find it) that no one can actually perceive or understand the true nature of reality. That is to say, narratives of spirits and planes and karma and vibrations and the Ring-Pass-Not and all the rest are not ultimate truth. They are narratives. They're mental models by which we try to make sense of our experiences and explore different ways of engaging with the world. Some of us, that is.

You can navigate successfully by observing and understanding the movements of the Celestial Sphere, but that doesn't require any such sphere or its movements to actually exist as anything other than a mental concept.

Have you considered that the etheric, astral, mental, and spiritual bodies, and even the Godhead itself, might all take place within the functioning of the physical brain? It wouldn't be the first time occult theology has proven to be mistaken about what is layered inside of what.
__________________
A z°mbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 4th February 2019, 02:44 AM   #233
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,777
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
... but if the evidence truly shows that reality was illogical we would need to dump logic or at least expand it to include this new event.
Your premise prevents you reaching that conclusion.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc 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 4th February 2019, 03:14 AM   #234
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,769
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Occult theology teaches we have several higher bodies and the soul and consciousness originate in the highest body. The soul body is a formless bubble of divine energy sealed off from the Godhead. Like a bubble in the ocean.

There are also the mental and astral bodies, and the etheric counterpart which channels consciousness down into the brain through the chakras, or energy centres.
That's nice and in Teletubby land the sun has a face!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 4th February 2019, 10:24 AM   #235
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Occult theology teaches we have several higher bodies and the soul and consciousness originate in the highest body. The soul body is a formless bubble of divine energy sealed off from the Godhead. Like a bubble in the ocean.
There are also the mental and astral bodies, and the etheric counterpart which channels consciousness down into the brain through the chakras, or energy centres.
Occult theology also says that there is one immutable self and all the erst are 'shells'.
Qliphoth/Qlippoth/Qlifot קְלִיפּוֹת ‬
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 4th February 2019, 10:25 AM   #236
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That's nice and in Teletubby land the sun has a face!
That demonic sun!
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 4th February 2019, 12:15 PM   #237
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 854
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
It's clear that this argument is too problematic to prove anything. I'll set it aside.
Don't 'set it aside'. Trash it. It's completely broken.

You've defined "determinate" and "indeterminate" in ways that exclude everything else. According to your definitions of those words, there's no room for anything else. All events or actions or whatever either 'determinate' or 'indeterminate'. You then later redefine 'indeterminate' as being something that can only lead to random events so you shoehorn in 'free will' as something that leads to non-random events, thus altering your argument mid-stream and blatantly contradicting yourself.

At this stage, it's not clear to me at all what you actually mean by determinate, indeterminate and free will. Not only are you not using any standard or common definitions for those, you're using your own definitions that you're changing on the fly in order to argue something or other, and the argument doesn't hold water even if your ever changing premises somehow lead to your conclusion.

That's only one example (and which many others have already pointed out) of what's wrong with your argument. It's just a mess of made up definitions, changing definitions, ad hoc arguments, etc. that doesn't go anywhere.

Instead of having a conclusion that you're trying to construct an argument around, why not just examine the evidence and see what conclusion it leads to? That's the way logic is meant to work.

Last edited by JesseCuster; 4th February 2019 at 12:16 PM.
JesseCuster 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 9th February 2019, 05:37 AM   #238
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,345
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Your premise prevents you reaching that conclusion.
No more than relativity prevents us using Newton's laws. It would just be an acknowledgement that what we know has limits to its application
__________________
"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 10th February 2019, 07:31 AM   #239
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that a living body is no better than a dead one when it comes to free will. The they both essentially lack personhood due to just being a substance like a rock. That free will must ultimately come from things that are people and that thus, to have free will a body must have a soul.

Why must a body or "person" have a soul? What do you mean by a “soul”? Whereabouts in a human body is the “soul”?

Why does the exercise of what seems to us like our “free will choices” mean that we must have a “soul”?

Where did the “soul” come from? For example – we know where the body comes from (ie through a process of sexual reproduction etc.), but where and how did any “soul” appear?
IanS 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 10th February 2019, 10:45 PM   #240
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,864
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Tell me what you think of the following argument for God.

1. There are three ways that events come about in the world: free will, determinism and indeterminism.

2. The universe came into existence.

3.The coming into existence of the universe is an event.

4. The coming into existence of the universe 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 coming into existence of the universe 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 universe, so too is the option of the universe beginning from quantum mechanical events ruled out.)

6. Therefore, the universe must have been brought into being 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 bring the world into existence 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 universe. (Since this description matches the idea of God, we can call this being God. But if not God then simply the creator of the universe.)
2. is not known to be true or false at present, and may never be. I know, I know, it seems intuitive but intuition and quantum physics don't go together
pharphis 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 08:51 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.