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.
Tags atheism , stephen hawking

Reply
Old 8th November 2018, 03:16 AM   #1281
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,480
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Correct
A consequence of this argument is that the universe can not be deterministic. Future states of the universe would be determined by its current state and by the random forces.
__________________
"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 8th November 2018, 03:34 AM   #1282
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,294
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
A consequence of this argument is that the universe can not be deterministic. Future states of the universe would be determined by its current state and by the random forces.
Yes and no. Imagine that the randomness is limited, in a sense fixed, because other parts are determined as totally fixed. Weird, right?!!
Now this is a thought experiment to explain random in universe that in some sense appears fixed.
"Free will" is then a limited random process which accounts for choices. The problem is that is not free will, it is a random "numbers-generator" and has nothing to do with been free. It is just random.

As for soft determinism if you water it down to match determinism, it ends being not free, but just variations. We are free it seems because we are determined differently by nature/nurture and become free by following our own individual thoughts. The joke is that our own individual thoughts are still determined and not really our own thoughts. E.g. the problem is that "I" and "the mind/consciousness itself" are epiphenomenal.
"Free will" is no different than "god" or "real". You either believe in them or don't.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 8th November 2018, 03:35 AM   #1283
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,061
The forces of nature is one thing. It's quite another when they are organized into highly complex systems. Gravity sees to it that matter attracts matter ... unless the matter consists of polar opposites, then another force of nature may be stronger. Organized as life, a squirrel may run up a tree away from the centre of gravity. And organized as highly evolved brains, the mind may to a certain extent influence the structure of the brain (and a lot of other things).
The laws of nature don't predetermine what I'm going to think or what I'm going to decide. I may even decide to defy the laws of nature, but I may also kill myself in the attempt to do so. Organized into a mind, other laws than those of ordinary matter and energy rule. Reaching a certain conclusion about something is not predetermined by gravity or any other laws of physics or chemistry.
The 'laws of the mind', see for instance: The Phenomenology of Spirit
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 8th November 2018, 03:40 AM   #1284
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,294
Originally Posted by dann View Post
The forces of nature is one thing. It's quite another when they are organized into highly complex systems. Gravity sees to it that matter attracts matter ... unless the matter consists of polar opposites, then another force of nature may be stronger. Organized as life, a squirrel may run up a tree away from the centre of gravity. And organized as highly evolved brains, the mind may to a certain extent influence the structure of the brain (and a lot of other things).
The laws of nature don't predetermine what I'm going to think or what I'm going to decide. I may even decide to defy the laws of nature, but I may also kill myself in the attempt to do so. Organized into a mind, other laws than those of ordinary matter and energy rule. Reaching a certain conclusion about something is not predetermined by gravity or any other laws of physics or chemistry.
The 'laws of the mind', see for instance: The Phenomenology of Spirit
If it works for you, good for you. To me it is thinking run amok. But tastes differ.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 8th November 2018, 03:45 AM   #1285
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Define "soft determinism".
Compatibilism, basically. The form of determinism that is compatible with free-will. In a deterministic universe, free-will decisions are one of the vectors that determine the universe.

Look at it this way: imagine a non-deterministic universe that runs for a million years, with free-will creatures making decisions. Someone, Agent X, has perfect knowledge of the past. He looks back for those million years and knows everything that has gone on.

Do the free-will creatures in the past still have free-will? Because if the creatures could have done other than what they chose (one definition of free-will) then Agent X's knowledge would be wrong! But no-one would agree that that is a valid conclusion.

Now imagine Agent Y, sitting at the start of the million years. He has perfect knowledge of everything that happens in the next million years. Do the free-will creatures lose their free-will? If you say 'yes', why? You might argue that 'seeing the future results in the loss of free-will', but that is concluding the very thing you are assuming as a premise.

I'd recommend reading up on the Modal Fallacy, which is used in discussions about Foreknowledge and Free-will. This is from the peer-reviewed International Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/
Once the logical error is detected, and removed, the argument for epistemic determinism simply collapses. If some future action/choice is known prior to its occurrence, that event does not thereby become "necessary", "compelled", "forced", or what have you... Knowing – whether by God or a human being – some future event no more forces that event to occur than our learning that dinosaurs lived in (what is now) South Dakota forced those reptiles to take up residence there.
That would look like a deterministic universe, since you can see every decision being made and the causes for them. Yet it also allows for free-will. What is causing the free-will decisions? I have no idea. I call it 'the free-will engine'. If we could understand the free-will engine, we might see the mechanisms on how free-will decisions get made. As a possible solution, you could say that God gives us the means to run our own free-will engine. I'm a theist, so I'm allowed to make that claim.

Last edited by GDon; 8th November 2018 at 03:55 AM.
GDon 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 8th November 2018, 07:57 AM   #1286
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Whooosh.

You missed the point. I didn't say resources should not be expended on study. I said numbers of believers are not evidence real gods exist.

I assumed you were speaking in the same context in which I myself made my original comment. Else it is just a random thing to say, isn't it?

Anyway, for what it is worth, I agree fully with you when you say that simply the number of believers is not evidence for anything, including the exisence of God(s).


Quote:
(...) Why do you think Hawking bothered with describing this POV of his?

I don't know, exactly. But in as much as that POV describes a rationale for his atheism, well, that's an argument for 'soft' atheism.


Quote:
Evidence of people's god beliefs being belief in mythical gods is easily found in overwhelming abundance. There is nothing subjective about it.

The lack of evidence of real gods when you'd expect to see evidence is easily exposed such as no evidence prayer has an effect unless the person you are praying for believes they are being prayed for.

I am not talking about subjective evidence.

Still, to decide basis this kind of arguably objective (lack of) evidence that there (definitely) cannot be a God, that remains a purely subjective decision. It does not objectively make sense. But subjectively, that is, from an individual's personal perspective, it can be perfectly reasonable.
Chanakya 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 8th November 2018, 09:27 AM   #1287
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,480
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Compatibilism, basically. The form of determinism that is compatible with free-will. In a deterministic universe, free-will decisions are one of the vectors that determine the universe.
Apart from this being a circular definition, it has too much of the "a little bit pregnant" rationale. You will have to try harder if you wish me to believe that free will can be part of a deterministic universe.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Look at it this way: imagine a non-deterministic universe that runs for a million years, with free-will creatures making decisions. Someone, Agent X, has perfect knowledge of the past. He looks back for those million years and knows everything that has gone on.

Do the free-will creatures in the past still have free-will? Because if the creatures could have done other than what they chose (one definition of free-will) then Agent X's knowledge would be wrong! But no-one would agree that that is a valid conclusion.

Now imagine Agent Y, sitting at the start of the million years. He has perfect knowledge of everything that happens in the next million years. Do the free-will creatures lose their free-will? If you say 'yes', why? You might argue that 'seeing the future results in the loss of free-will', but that is concluding the very thing you are assuming as a premise.
Slick!

Assume that free will exists in a deterministic universe (like you didn't have to prove anything after all) then try to muddy the waters with some time travel thought experiments.

If somebody managed to insert themselves into the past then clearly that act will change the state of the universe and cause a different set of outcomes from that point onwards regardless of whether free will exists or not. This is "butterfly effect" 101.
__________________
"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 8th November 2018, 09:30 AM   #1288
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,213
Free Will, as the term is used a philosophical concept in esoteric discussion, does not exist as it would require effects that don't have causes.

A thought, an opinion, a memory, an emotion.. these are just a biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain. Something caused it to be in that state because that's how reality works. Period. End of discussion. Any suggestion to the counter is invoking magic.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 8th November 2018, 09:45 AM   #1289
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,294
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Free Will, as the term is used a philosophical concept in esoteric discussion, does not exist as it would require effects that don't have causes.

A thought, an opinion, a memory, an emotion.. these are just a biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain. Something caused it to be in that state because that's how reality works. Period. End of discussion. Any suggestion to the counter is invoking magic.
Funny how it sometimes goes. We agree. The same with the term god, it is not needed.

It occurred to me that I apply a double standard. I defend peoples ability to believe in a god/s though I don't in believe in God, yet I go after people who believe in free will.
I think I know what it is. I am triggered by strong atheists, who call believers in a god/s delusional and so on, because I have 3 psychiatric disorders, where as it is not the same with free will.

Back to
Quote:
A thought, an opinion, a memory, an emotion.. these are just a biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain.
So is the word "I".
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 8th November 2018, 10:05 AM   #1290
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
What an odd question you start with. Of course I believe in evolution as the way life, including man, developed. I am an atheist and accept the overwhelming proof the scientific method has delivered, for our appraisal. It is only the religious who have trouble with science like this, as they desperately try to make it compatible with their dogma.

I see this struggle in your further explanation of the Adam and Eve "original sin" concept. So you don't believe in a literal, apple eating, version of this story I gather. Well there is little doubt that historical figures in Catholicism did from their writings. These are the ones that foundered and carried the "One True Church", (Acknowledgement to The Big Dog), forward to today. This is where the Roman Catholic Church came from!

The dilemma religions, such as yours, find themselves in is painful I'm sure.

No longer can we pretend we are the centre of creation as the scale of the universe impacts our understanding. What is the meaning of "being created in the image of God", (as I see you struggling with this above), when we evolved from a common source as other apes. How come there is so much imperfection about, (including in our own bodies), if your all powerful God had a hand in the making of all, regardless of the method used.

Why do you have the idea I am talking about evangelicals? The evangelical or fundie position is easier to defend as they just deny what science has given us.
Again


I enjoy discussion and argument. I do get frustrated that you seem to in many instances have an incorrect understanding of Catholicism, but I can sympathize that given your beliefs it's probably not worth a detailed course of study to you.

Noting also that in many areas Catholicism does not give definitive answers any more than any other area of thought. So just as someone might believe in string theory or not, and still be recognized as a physicist, so too Catholics might have different views of a literal Adam and Eve or Genesis generally or limbo or how crowded hell is, but still mutually be recognizably Catholic. The areas of dogmatic belief have more to do with more fundamental faith matters (like in the Apostle's Creed etc.). I don't generally read Catholic Answers as you do, so I can't speak to the quality or lack thereof of its answers. Because of where I am, I have the luxury of discussing matters IRL with more theologically-knowledgeable people.
epeeist 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 8th November 2018, 10:10 AM   #1291
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
I enjoy discussion and argument.
People need to stop acting like this absolves them of any need for coherency or consistency.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 8th November 2018, 10:11 AM   #1292
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Funny how it sometimes goes. We agree. The same with the term god, it is not needed.

It occurred to me that I apply a double standard. I defend peoples ability to believe in a god/s though I don't in believe in God, yet I go after people who believe in free will.
I think I know what it is. I am triggered by strong atheists, who call believers in a god/s delusional and so on, because I have 3 psychiatric disorders, where as it is not the same with free will.

Back to

So is the word "I".
I don't want to get personal, but just because I believe in free will doesn't mean that everyone always has perfect free will. There are many circumstances in which someone has a lesser degree of free will (or in some circumstances none depending upon to what extent brainwashing etc. may actually work?). The notion in a number of religions that people with mental health issues (or other circumstances) have diminished moral culpability for some things that they do, reflects that in a way analogous to criminal law.
epeeist 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 8th November 2018, 10:18 AM   #1293
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,294
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
I don't want to get personal, but just because I believe in free will doesn't mean that everyone always has perfect free will. There are many circumstances in which someone has a lesser degree of free will (or in some circumstances none depending upon to what extent brainwashing etc. may actually work?). The notion in a number of religions that people with mental health issues (or other circumstances) have diminished moral culpability for some things that they do, reflects that in a way analogous to criminal law.
Thanks

To me that is the sensible version of responsibility.
I once debated with a libertarian and no, not all are like this, but it ended with that people are responsible for their own genes.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 8th November 2018, 10:22 AM   #1294
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
People need to stop acting like this absolves them of any need for coherency or consistency.
People need to stop quoting single sentences out of context.

The context in this case being an introductory sentence responding to another post, all of which is required for context.
epeeist 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 8th November 2018, 02:06 PM   #1295
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Free Will, as the term is used a philosophical concept in esoteric discussion, does not exist as it would require effects that don't have causes.

A thought, an opinion, a memory, an emotion.. these are just a biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain. Something caused it to be in that state because that's how reality works. Period. End of discussion. Any suggestion to the counter is invoking magic.
Why can't Free-will be part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain?

For example, I choose to have eggs for breakfast. In a deterministic universe, physical forces within my brain result in that decision. But in that deterministic universe, I have a choice of two options. That's part of the deterministic universe. That's part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain.

I suspect part of the issue is looking at the universe as though it were a movie and there is no "I", and looking at it with "I" in mind (no pun intended). We don't know enough about the physical causes of consciousness and the apparent free-will that we possess to rule out that free-will can't exist in a deterministic universe, at least in a physical sense. It's a philosophical argument with philosophical implications, certainly. But how does one decide that Free-will exists or doesn't exist due to physical causes in the first place?

Last edited by GDon; 8th November 2018 at 02:09 PM.
GDon 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 8th November 2018, 02:09 PM   #1296
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Why can't Free-will be part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain?
Again because effects need causes, that's how reality works.

Your decisions, thoughts, opinions, etc are physical things, they represent actual chemical and electrical states of the brain. Those states can't just self cause themselves.

Quote:
For example, I choose to have eggs for breakfast. In a deterministic universe, physical forces within my brain result in that decision. But in that deterministic universe, I have a choice of two options. That's part of the deterministic universe. That's part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain.
That's gibberish. You just defined something one way, then another, then argued for neither.

Quote:
I suspect part of the issue is looking at the universe as though it were a movie and there is no "I", and looking at it with "I" in mind (no pun intended). We don't know enough about consciousness and the apparent free-will that we possess to rule out that free-will can't exist in a deterministic universe.
Sure we can.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 8th November 2018, 02:19 PM   #1297
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
Again


I enjoy discussion and argument. I do get frustrated that you seem to in many instances have an incorrect understanding of Catholicism, but I can sympathize that given your beliefs it's probably not worth a detailed course of study to you.
Don't worry too much about Thor 2. His heart's in the right place. He's what I'd call a "Bible Thumping Atheist." He's obsessed by the Bible, esp the OT. Not only will he tell you where Catholicism is wrong, he'll also pull out passages from the Bible to tell you how to do it right! Never mind the long tradition within Catholicism and other Christian denominations of teachings and philosophical standing points -- they are irrelevant to Thor 2, if they somehow disagree with the Bible in his eyes.
GDon 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 8th November 2018, 02:22 PM   #1298
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again because effects need causes, that's how reality works.

Your decisions, thoughts, opinions, etc are physical things, they represent actual chemical and electrical states of the brain. Those states can't just self cause themselves.
Why does free-will require those states to self-cause themselves? What does that mean physically? And why can't it happen in a deterministic universe?

Are you saying that in a non-deterministic universe, states of the brain COULD self cause themselves?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's gibberish. You just defined something one way, then another, then argued for neither.
I'd appreciate it if you show me.

Last edited by GDon; 8th November 2018 at 02:32 PM.
GDon 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 8th November 2018, 02:34 PM   #1299
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,101
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
Again


I enjoy discussion and argument. I do get frustrated that you seem to in many instances have an incorrect understanding of Catholicism, but I can sympathize that given your beliefs it's probably not worth a detailed course of study to you.

Noting also that in many areas Catholicism does not give definitive answers any more than any other area of thought. So just as someone might believe in string theory or not, and still be recognized as a physicist, so too Catholics might have different views of a literal Adam and Eve or Genesis generally or limbo or how crowded hell is, but still mutually be recognizably Catholic. The areas of dogmatic belief have more to do with more fundamental faith matters (like in the Apostle's Creed etc.). I don't generally read Catholic Answers as you do, so I can't speak to the quality or lack thereof of its answers. Because of where I am, I have the luxury of discussing matters IRL with more theologically-knowledgeable people.

I would be more impressed if you were to address the questions I raised rather than just commenting that I have an "incorrect understanding of Catholicism". I would have thought Catholic Answers would be the ultimate final word, for explanations about Catholic belief and the contributors of these answers, would be the crème de la crème of Catholic theologians.

Do you allow yourself the luxury of trying to figure out answers yourself, to the tricky conundrums such as those I have detailed? Accepting that evolution is fact, (and in your belief the way God made life including us), when and who got the first souls? I assume you think we, humans, are the only ones who possess souls.
__________________
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 8th November 2018, 02:46 PM   #1300
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,101
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Don't worry too much about Thor 2. His heart's in the right place. He's what I'd call a "Bible Thumping Atheist." He's obsessed by the Bible, esp the OT. Not only will he tell you where Catholicism is wrong, he'll also pull out passages from the Bible to tell you how to do it right! Never mind the long tradition within Catholicism and other Christian denominations of teachings and philosophical standing points -- they are irrelevant to Thor 2, if they somehow disagree with the Bible in his eyes.

Thanks for the penetrating insightful analysis into my psyche. At least I am glad to hear you think my heart's in the right place.

I was of the understanding that the Bible was what Christianity was all about. Not so? Where else do Catholics and other Christians get their directions? Oh I know there are the writings of various saints etc, but they in turn refer to the Bible do they not?
__________________
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 8th November 2018, 02:46 PM   #1301
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,294
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I would be more impressed if you were to address the questions I raised rather than just commenting that I have an "incorrect understanding of Catholicism". I would have thought Catholic Answers would be the ultimate final word, for explanations about Catholic belief and the contributors of these answers, would be the crème de la crème of Catholic theologians.

Do you allow yourself the luxury of trying to figure out answers yourself, to the tricky conundrums such as those I have detailed? Accepting that evolution is fact, (and in your belief the way God made life including us), when and who got the first souls? I assume you think we, humans, are the only ones who possess souls.
Thor 2, you can't have it both ways, you can't demand a coherent, reflected reading like yours of people, who are deluded and then hold it against them that they are deluded. Let them be and try to find common ground. Stop evangelizing for the correct understanding of the Bible. There is no correct understanding. It is a matter of belief.

Instead identify those parts and religious teachings, which support your ethics. They are there because you can find religious people, who are secular, humanistic, for democracy, human rights and all the rest. That which you believe in, right? Join them and fight along with them against all, who are a danger to you both regardless of whether they are religious or not.
The threat is all authoritarian worldviews and not just religious ones and all religions are not authoritarian.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 8th November 2018, 02:59 PM   #1302
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,294
Thor 2, btw:
https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe
https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles
https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/sources
Quote:
...Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;...
They are one of the end positions of secular, humanistic religions and they include Christian teaching, but not just.

They started out as Christians and are now so general that certain types of atheists could join and properly have.
If I had such a church in my neighborhood I could join. We might no share all views, but we would share these:

Quote:
1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
And these I can get a positive meaning out of even as I most rely on science:

Quote:
  • Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
  • Words and deeds of prophetic people which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
  • Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
  • Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
  • Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
  • Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 8th November 2018, 04:43 PM   #1303
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Thanks for the penetrating insightful analysis into my psyche. At least I am glad to hear you think my heart's in the right place.
You're welcome. If only you thought with your heart!

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I was of the understanding that the Bible was what Christianity was all about. Not so? Where else do Catholics and other Christians get their directions? Oh I know there are the writings of various saints etc, but they in turn refer to the Bible do they not?
Not necessarily. According to Catholic theology, there are several sources of revelation: Sacred Scripture (Bible), Sacred Tradition (via the apostles and their successors), and the Sacred Magisterium (Teaching Authority).

Most denominations have such traditions, to cover situations that have developed in the last thousand years that are not covered by the Bible. They are like Amendments to the US Constitution. You can't understand the use of the Constitution in modern times without understanding the Amendments.
GDon 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 November 2018, 12:55 AM   #1304
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,061
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Why can't Free-will be part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain?
Your decisions, thoughts, opinions, etc are physical things, they represent actual chemical and electrical states of the brain. Those states can't just self cause themselves.

No, a decision, a thought and an opinion obviously aren't physical things. They can even be put down on paper or digitalized to be read on a screen, i.e. what you're doing now. That "actual chemical and electrical states of the brain" give rise to the ability to think doesn't mean that it causes your thoughts. (What would be the point of arguing if it did?) It may all rest on the synapses, but you, i.e. your mind, consider ideas, draw conclusions etc. The brain evolved to think, and that's what you do with it. Free will is "part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain."
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 November 2018, 03:36 AM   #1305
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by dann View Post
The brain evolved to think, and that's what you do with it. Free will is "part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain."
That's the key question. Some of the posts here aren't that free-will conflicts with determinism, but free-will can't exist at all regardless of whether the universe is deterministic or not.

But if free-will does exist, there is no reason that it can't be a result of a functioning human brain -- at least, as far as I know. There is no need to include a non-natural element to make free-will work. There are some atheist philosophers that are compatibilists, like Dan Dennett, who believe that free-will decisions can be made in a 'natural' universe.

If free-will is considered as part of the natural functioning of the human brain, then it doesn't matter whether the universe is deterministic or not.

Last edited by GDon; 9th November 2018 at 03:41 AM.
GDon 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 November 2018, 03:53 AM   #1306
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,213
I don't give a rat's anus about "This philosophy says this" or "This philosophical term says that."

Effects need causes. That's how reality works. The 3 lbs of grey matter inside your skull is not some special magical place where that isn't true. Period. End of discussion.

When you are thinking something or feeling something or remembering something that's because that 3 lbs of grey matter is in a certain physical state, a specific combination of millions of different chemical and electrical variables and that specific state has cause, just like every other specific state in the universe.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 9th November 2018, 04:15 AM   #1307
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,294
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't give a rat's anus about "This philosophy says this" or "This philosophical term says that."

Effects need causes. That's how reality works. The 3 lbs of grey matter inside your skull is not some special magical place where that isn't true. Period. End of discussion.

When you are thinking something or feeling something or remembering something that's because that 3 lbs of grey matter is in a certain physical state, a specific combination of millions of different chemical and electrical variables and that specific state has cause, just like every other specific state in the universe.
I do give a rat's anus about this:
Quote:
Gradually, however, cognitive relativism has gained in credibility as the sharp logical dichotomy between facts and values has been increasingly questioned. Instead of a dichotomy, many now argue for a spectrum of judgments with a greater or lesser evaluative component to them. Moreover, these components themselves may not be seen as radically different; they may, for instance, simply reflect the degree to which a judgment is controversial within a particular community, with what we call factual judgments being the least disputed. From this point of view, cognitive relativism is broader and more fundamental than moral relativism, for it asserts that the truth value of all judgments, not just moral ones, is relative.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/
So it is physical in your brain, that you don't give a rat's anus about this piece of philosophy.
And it is physical in my brain, that I do give a rat's anus about this piece of philosophy.
Both are value judgments and neither you nor I can with strict reason, logic and evidence show that either position is with only strict reason, logic and evidence, because both are relative value judgments.
I am not right and you are not wrong or in reverse. We are different and as a libertarian you should know this. Neither of us hold authority over the other.
I am a libertarian in the sense that the only one who holds authority over your life is you. The same goes for all other individuals. How we treat each other has nothing to do with authority, it has to do with how we use power or not. If we fight or cooperate.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 November 2018, 12:55 PM   #1308
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,101
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I do give a rat's anus about this:

Quote:
Gradually, however, cognitive relativism has gained in.........

Lots of words. Somewhat unpalatable but might benefit if we drizzle some lemon juice over it.

......... not just moral ones, is relative.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/
So it is physical in your brain, that you don't give a rat's anus about this piece of philosophy.
And it is physical in my brain, that I do give a rat's anus about this piece of philosophy.
Both are value judgments and neither you nor I can with strict reason, logic and evidence show that either position is with only strict reason, logic and evidence, because both are relative value judgments.
I am not right and you are not wrong or in reverse. We are different and as a libertarian you should know this. Neither of us hold authority over the other.
I am a libertarian in the sense that the only one who holds authority over your life is you. The same goes for all other individuals. How we treat each other has nothing to do with authority, it has to do with how we use power or not. If we fight or cooperate.
Can't see how you have answered Joe's statement here however.
__________________
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 9th November 2018, 01:22 PM   #1309
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,101
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
You're welcome. If only you thought with your heart!
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. After saying in a previous post that "my heart was in the right place", you now suggest the above?


Quote:
Not necessarily. According to Catholic theology, there are several sources of revelation: Sacred Scripture (Bible), Sacred Tradition (via the apostles and their successors), and the Sacred Magisterium (Teaching Authority).

Most denominations have such traditions, to cover situations that have developed in the last thousand years that are not covered by the Bible. They are like Amendments to the US Constitution. You can't understand the use of the Constitution in modern times without understanding the Amendments.

Thanks for the lesson but I did have an inkling about the Catholic Churches gyrations in coming to its decisions about the myriad of different issues it concerns itself with. Rhythm method good / condoms bad, Pope is infallible / Pope screws up if he says stuff when not in that special chair, the consecrated Host is actually the body of Christ / still taste like a cracker and sticks to the roof of your mouth, and so on.

My issue with all this, is that the truth is being constantly amended, so modern man has a better take on it than not so modern man? If the original word of God himself was not sufficient, (or perhaps a little wrong in places), how can this be?
__________________
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 9th November 2018, 01:47 PM   #1310
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,098
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
First just to address this:


I'm happy to do so and I think you're right that it's not worth going further down this derail, but I'd like to clarify my position first because I think you misunderstood me slightly.

I think everything I said can apply to whole organisms. The point was simply that it may be an incredibly rare event, for instance it could have only happened once that an organism of extraterrestrial origin arrived on earth and survived (and reproduced) here long enough for it's ancestors to take hold. In that case all life on earth would be the descendants of that organism (or perhaps small population of organisms).

Under this idea, either no other events (organisms arriving from space) took place or if other events took place none of them took hold (ie. left descendants).

I basically agree.

Yes, but that is consistent with it's simply being very rare.

On the other hand and to be fair I do find the idea very improbable. Bacteria surviving for years in space is very different from the tens or hundreds of thousands of years that would be necessary for panspermia to work.

Just thought it worth pointing out that it wasn't with me, though I think I did see one of those threads that you participated in, I never joined the discussion.
So you change the definition of panspermia to life was seeded here once. That is just as meaningless as saying panspermia refers to organic molecules.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 November 2018, 01:47 PM   #1311
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't give a rat's anus about "This philosophy says this" or "This philosophical term says that."
We will see.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Effects need causes.
Ummm....

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's how reality works. The 3 lbs of grey matter inside your skull is not some special magical place where that isn't true. Period. End of discussion.

When you are thinking something or feeling something or remembering something that's because that 3 lbs of grey matter is in a certain physical state, a specific combination of millions of different chemical and electrical variables and that specific state has cause, just like every other specific state in the universe.
You have to admit, we have the appearance of making free-will decision. There is at least that. So why can't that grey matter create free-will decisions? Please don't use philosophy in your response.

Last edited by GDon; 9th November 2018 at 01:49 PM.
GDon 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 November 2018, 01:57 PM   #1312
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,098
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I assumed you were speaking in the same context in which I myself made my original comment. Else it is just a random thing to say, isn't it?
So your failure to communicate is my fault?

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
...

I don't know, exactly. But in as much as that POV describes a rationale for his atheism, well, that's an argument for 'soft' atheism.

Still, to decide basis this kind of arguably objective (lack of) evidence that there (definitely) cannot be a God, that remains a purely subjective decision. It does not objectively make sense. But subjectively, that is, from an individual's personal perspective, it can be perfectly reasonable.


Are you having trouble with the concept here?

The evidence is overwhelming all gods are mythical beings.

There is no evidence of any real gods.

End of inquiry.

IOW, there is no evidence of, therefore there is no reason to ask if there are any gods.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 November 2018, 01:58 PM   #1313
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. After saying in a previous post that "my heart was in the right place", you now suggest the above?
An attempt at humour. I was saying that your heart is in the right place (where the heart should be), but not your brain; i.e. your brain isn't being used properly. Apologies. Humour doesn't come across well when it has to be explained. Probably more a reflection on me than you. Probably.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Thanks for the lesson but I did have an inkling about the Catholic Churches gyrations in coming to its decisions about the myriad of different issues it concerns itself with. Rhythm method good / condoms bad, Pope is infallible / Pope screws up if he says stuff when not in that special chair, the consecrated Host is actually the body of Christ / still taste like a cracker and sticks to the roof of your mouth, and so on.
Oh c'mon. The quote of yours I was responding to was:

"I was of the understanding that the Bible was what Christianity was all about. Not so?"

Why ask that if you already knew what you mention above?

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
My issue with all this, is that the truth is being constantly amended, so modern man has a better take on it than not so modern man? If the original word of God himself was not sufficient, (or perhaps a little wrong in places), how can this be?
Those goal posts can't move themselves!

Surely the idea of on-going revelation, where the church (or whoever) is the source of the on-going revelation, is not a mystery to you either? Which means that the original word of God is NOT enough. But only fundamentalists, theists or atheists, would find this a problem.

Epeeist, I hope you can see now that you are dealing with an atheist Bible fanatic.

Last edited by GDon; 9th November 2018 at 02:02 PM.
GDon 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 November 2018, 02:29 PM   #1314
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
You have to admit, we have the appearance of making free-will decision. There is at least that. So why can't that grey matter create free-will decisions? Please don't use philosophy in your response.
Listen Sport I know that every Navel Gazer ever born thinks they are the first person to ever use the "Everything is philosophy, therefore what you are doing is philosophy, ergo you can't argue against anything I'm doing as long as I'm calling it philosophy" nonsense and that it's some ultimate mic-drop argument ender.

But they aren't and it isn't.

Yes we have the "appearance" of having Free Will. Your point? That doesn't mean magic makes stuff happen without causes.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 9th November 2018, 03:39 PM   #1315
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Listen Sport I know that every Navel Gazer ever born thinks they are the first person to ever use the "Everything is philosophy, therefore what you are doing is philosophy, ergo you can't argue against anything I'm doing as long as I'm calling it philosophy" nonsense and that it's some ultimate mic-drop argument ender.

But they aren't and it isn't.
Conversely, there are those who think that they are "doing science" when really they are discussing the philosophy of science.

From the Philosophy of Science article on Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Other issues in philosophy of psychology are philosophical questions about the nature of mind, brain, and cognition, and are perhaps more commonly thought of as part of cognitive science, or philosophy of mind. For example, are humans rational creatures?[93] Is there any sense in which they have free will, and how does that relate to the experience of making choices?
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yes we have the "appearance" of having Free Will. Your point? That doesn't mean magic makes stuff happen without causes.
Appearances can be deceptive of course. But if we have the appearance of having Free-will, does that mean we have the appearance of magic making stuff happen without causes? In your mind, does the appearance of Free-will have the appearance of magic?
GDon 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 November 2018, 03:59 PM   #1316
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,101
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
An attempt at humour. I was saying that your heart is in the right place (where the heart should be), but not your brain; i.e. your brain isn't being used properly. Apologies. Humour doesn't come across well when it has to be explained. Probably more a reflection on me than you. Probably.
Brain not being used properly ...... hummmmm. I will reflect on that with my ineffectively used brain, but seeing I am not using it properly, I suppose my chances of success are limited.


Quote:
Oh c'mon. The quote of yours I was responding to was:

"I was of the understanding that the Bible was what Christianity was all about. Not so?"

Why ask that if you already knew what you mention above?
The point I am making, and have been quite consistent in making through many posts, is the inconsistency and piecemeal nature of religious belief like Catholicism.

The Bible is what Catholics start with, but then you have a plethora of later dudes, explaining and massaging the obscure message contained therein, to suit their own agendas. We have concepts like Limbo and Purgatory for example emerging over time, to try and allay the fears of bereaved parents in the first case, and provide a great money spinner for the Church in the other. I know Limbo is no more as the Catholics sold it.


Quote:
Those goal posts can't move themselves!

Surely the idea of on-going revelation, where the church (or whoever) is the source of the on-going revelation, is not a mystery to you either? Which means that the original word of God is NOT enough. But only fundamentalists, theists or atheists, would find this a problem.
Sure it's a mystery to me that folk can be cool with this idea. The Bible is supposed to be "the word of God" through his prophets, (and in some parts directly), why can't it be written in a way that is easily understood by all?

Is it not obvious to you that if the more recent and "correct" interpretations, (as well as the inspired input of apostles successors), are available to modern man, but were not available to not so modern man, then the advantage is ours and the forefathers screwed.

Quote:
Epeeist, I hope you can see now that you are dealing with an atheist Bible fanatic.
"Atheist Bible fanatic" is it? Now that really adds some depth to the conversation.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.

Last edited by Thor 2; 9th November 2018 at 04:00 PM.
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 9th November 2018, 05:10 PM   #1317
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The point I am making, and have been quite consistent in making through many posts, is the inconsistency and piecemeal nature of religious belief like Catholicism.
Grrrr! It's like fingers on a chalkboard. We've gone over this before. What you are doing is THEOLOGY. How do YOU know that God doesn't want to have on-going revelation? What you seem to be saying is that God -- which you don't believe in -- should behave in a certain way that He is not currently behaving in, or that Catholic belief isn't correct in expressing that God's wish. But how do you know? And how do you validate what is 'consistent' or not? What are you measuring against? Reality?

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The Bible is what Catholics start with, but then you have a plethora of later dudes, explaining and massaging the obscure message contained therein, to suit their own agendas. We have concepts like Limbo and Purgatory for example emerging over time, to try and allay the fears of bereaved parents in the first case, and provide a great money spinner for the Church in the other. I know Limbo is no more as the Catholics sold it.
Okay. So what is the RIGHT view that Catholics should have, and how would you evaluate that? You are basically saying "on this topic God should not use on-going revelation."

THEOLOGY, THEOLOGY, THEOLOGY.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Sure it's a mystery to me that folk can be cool with this idea. The Bible is supposed to be "the word of God" through his prophets, (and in some parts directly), why can't it be written in a way that is easily understood by all?
THEOLOGY! "This is what God should do!"

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Is it not obvious to you that if the more recent and "correct" interpretations, (as well as the inspired input of apostles successors), are available to modern man, but were not available to not so modern man, then the advantage is ours and the forefathers screwed.
THEOLOGY! "This is how God should judge!"

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
"Atheist Bible fanatic" is it? Now that really adds some depth to the conversation.
Let me add some depth. You are an Australian, in a country where few people, even Christian believers, care much about the Bible. That includes pre-atheist you (IIRC from our previous conversations.) You become an atheist (no problem with that), get on the internet, and then... hey, presto! You become obsessed with framing the Bible as the centre-piece of Christianity! I've come across others like you. The Internet has a weird proselyting effect on newly minted atheists.

Now, if you want to highlight two ideas within Catholicism and show that they are inconsistent and contradictory, then more power to you. No problem with that at all. But to ignore Catholic teachings, to say that their teachings are inconsistent with what a God (which you don't believe exists) should REALLY do is THEOLOGY.

If someone wants to do theology, that's great. If I have a common theological belief with someone, I'm happy to discuss it. But if you don't believe in God in the first place, it is pointless to do theology. Because there is no reference to validate against.

To get an idea of what I mean: explain to me how you would validate Catholic's belief in Limbo, such that you know it is the CORRECT belief? By 'correct', I mean 'conforming to what you think is true' or 'conforming to how God SHOULD be'. I will predict with 100% certainty that your answer will involve theology rather than science or logic.

Last edited by GDon; 9th November 2018 at 05:14 PM.
GDon 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 November 2018, 07:07 PM   #1318
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,480
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
So why can't that grey matter create free-will decisions?
Because according to you, the universe is deterministic. This means that by definition, the "grey matter" only ever does what it was programmed to do by the universe (your attempts to obfuscate the definition of "deterministic" not withstanding).

The only only way that humans could have free will would be if God created them with free will and placed them in an otherwise deterministic universe. However, this act would mean that the universe is no longer deterministic.
__________________
"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 9th November 2018, 07:32 PM   #1319
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,181
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I hope that you're aware that a considerable (and rapidly expanding) part of "the human species" doesn't believe in anything divine (or "divine"). It doesn't seem to depend much on ethnicity. Country and culture do seem to play a role, however: Demographics of atheism (Wikipedia) And existential security seems to be very important for people's ability to let go of god beliefs.
Yet at one time both Russia and China had some type of belief system, well actually multiple types of belief systems because of the various cultures in those countries, prior to the establishment of communism. The world population is in the billions so 240 million atheists is not that impressive a number IMO. Plus, not all atheists started out as atheists.



Quote:
You would have to ask a couple of other species to answer that question.
Yep, thought about that, if we ever learn to communicate with the greater apes and cetaceans I guess we can ask them.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie 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 November 2018, 10:24 PM   #1320
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Because according to you, the universe is deterministic. This means that by definition, the "grey matter" only ever does what it was programmed to do by the universe (your attempts to obfuscate the definition of "deterministic" not withstanding).
Why can't that programming include the ability to make free-will decisions? Do you think that we might be able to create AI with the ability to make free-will decisions?

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The only only way that humans could have free will would be if God created them with free will and placed them in an otherwise deterministic universe. However, this act would mean that the universe is no longer deterministic.
I don't see the need to have God involved in the process, do you? Atheist compatibilists like Dan Dennett believe that some form of free-will can exist in a determinist universe. Why does God have to be involved?
GDon 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 09:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.