Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Problem Of Evil

The Problem Of Evil
(05-16-2019, 05:34 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 03:32 PM)SteveII Wrote: This is another "prove" problem. I don't need to prove it.

Fundamentally, there are categories of things where one must trust one's cognitive faculties. It seems true. One's inclined to believe in other minds, one's inclined to believe in the past, one's inclined to believe in immaterial objects and one is inclined to believe in free will.

We also believed that the sun went around the earth, and that mental illness was caused by demons and given the beliefs and lack of knowledge at the time were able to prove it. We could point to the sun going up and down, and belief in the stories of the bible told us people were possessed and that's the way they acted.

Can you provide any evidence beyond your personal belief that free will actually exists ?

You missed the point. My 4 examples are things we cannot prove but we take to be a true about reality. We cannot get outside of our minds to examine our minds. Things like the sun and mental illness are not in the same category because they are external beliefs/things that we can gather additional facts about. So, no, there is no evidence beyond our belief that these things represent the reality we find ourselves. They can be disproved, not proved. And to date, Free Will has not been disproved--so we all continue like it is real.
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
There is no "free will". A choice is totally dependent on the physical brain patterns of the person making the choice. There is nothing "free" about the choice.
That was easy. In 2019, "free will" is a meaningless concept. Neuroscience has much better explanations for how choices are made, that the ancient outdated religious nonsense of "free will".
Test
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-16-2019, 03:32 PM)SteveII Wrote: This is another "prove" problem. I don't need to prove it.
Fundamentally, there are categories of things where one must trust one's cognitive faculties. It seems true. One's inclined to believe in other minds, one's inclined to believe in the past, one's inclined to believe in immaterial objects and one is inclined to believe in free will.

Fundamental reality has been proven to be non-intuitive.
Too bad. He loses. "It seems true" .... LMAO.
"One" is not inclined to believe any of that rubbish.
Test
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-16-2019, 03:32 PM)SteveII Wrote: Another point, atheist constantly miss the fact that religious belief is due to a cumulative set of reasons to believe--all with their own kind/threshold of proof needed for that particular individual. So, to simply demand "proof" is insufficient. What kind, what threshold, single issue or cumulative, and to what end...

Religious "belief" is not supported by "set of reasons".  That's known as a circular reasoning.
As per the oft-quoted theist claim:  The Bible is true, so you should not doubt the Word of God.
As a rational, non-theistic person, I have a belief that water comprises billions of molecules.  
Each molecule is made of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms held together by covalent bonding.

Compare this with any theist belief:  That a supernatural entity they call God actually exists, and
can and does influence the world and its inhabitants. Or that someone called Jesus will return to earth
again in what’s known as the Second Coming.  

The difference?  I can unequivocally prove my claim about water (and, of course, so can you... I hope).
On the other hand, your claims as a Christian?  No empirical evidence in support thereof; mythology and
superstition; third-party hearsay; 2,000-year-old manuscripts; a mindless acceptance of supernatural
entities and paranormal phenomena etc etc.

Most of your quotation, above, is nothing more than a smokescreen of distracting, irrelevant assertions.
My "threshold" of proof is observation, cause, effect and replication.  What's yours?  Gullibility?
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • mordant
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-17-2019, 05:27 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-17-2019, 07:18 AM)brunumb Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 03:32 PM)SteveII Wrote: Another point, atheist constantly miss the fact that religious belief is due to a cumulative set of reasons to believe--all with their own kind/threshold of proof needed for that particular individual.

While theists miss the fact that religious belief is predominantly due to indoctrination of uncritical minds from an early age.  Any subsequent reasoning is little more than post-hoc rationalisation and retrofitting of dodgy 'evidence' in a vain attempt to shore up that belief.

You constantly assert that, but that's just a clear example of applying the genetic fallacy.

How can indoctrinataion be considered as a "genetic fallacy"?

You can as easily indoctrinate an adopted child from another religion into the adoptive parents woo  ... what the fuck has genetics got to do with it?
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-17-2019, 05:52 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 05:34 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 03:32 PM)SteveII Wrote: This is another "prove" problem. I don't need to prove it.

Fundamentally, there are categories of things where one must trust one's cognitive faculties. It seems true. One's inclined to believe in other minds, one's inclined to believe in the past, one's inclined to believe in immaterial objects and one is inclined to believe in free will.

We also believed that the sun went around the earth, and that mental illness was caused by demons and given the beliefs and lack of knowledge at the time were able to prove it. We could point to the sun going up and down, and belief in the stories of the bible told us people were possessed and that's the way they acted.

Can you provide any evidence beyond your personal belief that free will actually exists ?


You missed the point. My 4 examples are things we cannot prove but we take to be a true about reality. We cannot get outside of our minds to examine our minds. Things like the sun and mental illness are not in the same category because they are external beliefs/things that we can gather additional facts about. So, no, there is no evidence beyond our belief that these things represent the reality we find ourselves. They can be disproved, not proved. And to date, Free Will has not been disproved--so we all continue like it is real.

Okay lets have a look at them..

1) Other minds
I can show that there are other people and by attaching scientific instruments show that there are other minds.
I and others can see, smell, touch those other people. So even if it were true it's all imagined I could provide what i consider external empirical evidence to show other minds at work, driving, building, working etc..

2) The Past
I'm not sure what you are getting at with this one, and again even if it's all in my head I can provide what is reasonable to consider external evidence. If for instance my friend came to me and asked if he could stay at my house for a few days because his had burnt down, I could go look at the burnt down house as could anyone else, in other words even if it is in my mind I could provide what I consider external empirical evidence to show that it was a past event (not currently happening)

3) Immaterial objects
What do you mean by this exactly ?  A concept remains a concept till it is shown empirically.

4) Free Will
Is just a feeling that it must be so, you actually have no reason at all to believe it is so which is why I asked for evidence. Personally i never envisioned that we had what you call free will.

Also you are making this claim outside of simple belief in free will, you are saying it must be so to make an excuse/reason for evil, this is against intuitive thinking that a unproven loving deity and evil simply are not compatible, that an abused child and a loving god who has the power to intervene who does not. You are effectively because of your beliefs constructing excuses why this could be, as you cannot know god's mind and free will becomes vital to your case (though not all christians agree on free will of course).  You are simply dismissing one intuitive argument for the one you favour out of a prior belief.

Can anyone show free will does not exists, I'm not sure,  but it can be shown that upbringing, indoctrination and surroundings play a large part in what we believe to be true (and hence decisions we make free or not) I can find zero evidence we are free to make decisions that our circumstances and prior thoughts don't play a part in and influence, including what to believe about gods.

It was just a question, if your answer is no you can't prove, which I think you have said it then fair enough.
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
The following 1 user Likes possibletarian's post:
  • Bucky Ball
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-16-2019, 03:32 PM)SteveII Wrote: ... there are categories of things where one must trust one's cognitive faculties ... one's inclined to believe in immaterial objects ...

"Immaterial objects" is an oxymoron, betraying that the concept is incomplete; the product of an inadequate cognitive faculty, and certainly not, as implied, a universally shared one.

We observe something we cannot personally explain in terms of our knowledge of the material.  We cannot leap from there to conclude it must be immaterial, particularly because no one has even begun to define the immaterial (so we wind up with oxymorons like immaterial object).  What's most likely is that whatever strikes us an inexplicable is only exposing our ignorance.

The most powerful evidence against supposing an immaterial dimension of reality is that no scientific inquiry has ever found itself following that arrow:  only two conclusions emerge:  this is the material explanation, or there's insufficient information to derive an explanation.  No inquiry has concluded the explanation must have an immaterial component.  The only factions of human inquiry that suppose immateriality are the ignorant whose "inquiries" are not genuine inquiry but confirmation hunts.  They find a pebble on a beach and proclaim that beaches aren't sand because here's a pebble.
The following 2 users Like airportkid's post:
  • brunumb, possibletarian
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-17-2019, 07:53 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 03:32 PM)SteveII Wrote: Another point, atheist constantly miss the fact that religious belief is due to a cumulative set of reasons to believe--all with their own kind/threshold of proof needed for that particular individual. So, to simply demand "proof" is insufficient. What kind, what threshold, single issue or cumulative, and to what end...

Religious "belief" is not supported by "set of reasons".  That's known as a circular reasoning.

It seems you are confused. You actually listed "reasons" below.

Quote:As per the oft-quoted theist claim:  The Bible is true, so you should not doubt the Word of God.
As a rational, non-theistic person, I have a belief that water comprises billions of molecules.  
Each molecule is made of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms held together by covalent bonding.

Compare this with any theist belief:  That a supernatural entity they call God actually exists, and
can and does influence the world and its inhabitants. Or that someone called Jesus will return to earth
again in what’s known as the Second Coming.  

The difference?  I can unequivocally prove my claim about water (and, of course, so can you... I hope).
On the other hand, your claims as a Christian?  No empirical evidence in support thereof; mythology and
superstition; third-party hearsay; 2,000-year-old manuscripts; a mindless acceptance of supernatural
entities and paranormal phenomena etc etc.

Most of your quotation, above, is nothing more than a smokescreen of distracting, irrelevant assertions.
My "threshold" of proof is observation, cause, effect and replication.  What's yours?  Gullibility?

You are making a category error. Answer these:

Are personal experiences empirical?
Is courtroom testimony of 25 witnesses empirical?
Can any historical event (not video taped) be empirically verified?
Is wondering why there is something rather than nothing an empirical inquiry?
Is the idea that time flows and the past is real empirical?
Is the evolutionary principle of common decent based on empirical knowledge?
Is the statement (as you seem to believe) "empirical knowledge is the only true knowledge" itself empirical?

Hint: the answer to all these is NO.
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-20-2019, 01:59 PM)SteveII Wrote: You are making a category error. Answer these:

Are personal experiences empirical?
Is courtroom testimony of 25 witnesses empirical?
Can any historical event (not video taped) be empirically verified?
Is wondering why there is something rather than nothing an empirical inquiry?
Is the idea that time flows and the past is real empirical?
Is the evolutionary principle of common decent based on empirical knowledge?
Is the statement (as you seem to believe) "empirical knowledge is the only true knowledge" itself empirical?

Hint: the answer to all these is NO.
If by "empirical" you mean "100% substantiated and proven" then the answer to all must be no.

But a more functional definition of "empirical" would be "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

By that definition, the answer to all is IT DEPENDS and if you have decent evidentiary standards and are reasonably pragmatic, a conditional YES.

BTW video is no longer a sure thing, due to "deep fake" technology.

Ultimately nothing is a sure thing but that does not mean we throw our hands up and put "making things up" on an equal footing with reasonable knowledge claims. We can know most things to a reasonable and supportable level of confidence. The things that are not substantiatable by some reasonable preponderance of evidence, we don't make claims concerning at all.
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-17-2019, 09:59 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(05-17-2019, 05:52 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 05:34 PM)possibletarian Wrote: We also believed that the sun went around the earth, and that mental illness was caused by demons and given the beliefs and lack of knowledge at the time were able to prove it. We could point to the sun going up and down, and belief in the stories of the bible told us people were possessed and that's the way they acted.

Can you provide any evidence beyond your personal belief that free will actually exists ?


You missed the point. My 4 examples are things we cannot prove but we take to be a true about reality. We cannot get outside of our minds to examine our minds. Things like the sun and mental illness are not in the same category because they are external beliefs/things that we can gather additional facts about. So, no, there is no evidence beyond our belief that these things represent the reality we find ourselves. They can be disproved, not proved. And to date, Free Will has not been disproved--so we all continue like it is real.

Okay lets have a look at them..

1) Other minds
I can show that there are other people and by attaching scientific instruments show that there are other minds.
I and others can see, smell, touch those other people. So even if it were true it's all imagined I could provide what i consider external empirical evidence to show other minds at work, driving, building, working etc..

What if we are just minds designed to have a virtual life? Or a brain in a vat? Or part of a computer simulation or The Matrix? Or some other system we cannot understand? It is impossible to disprove this--yet we are said to be justified in assuming the external world exists and there are other minds like ours actually interacting.

Quote:2) The Past
I'm not sure what you are getting at with this one, and again even if it's all in my head I can provide what is reasonable to consider external evidence. If for instance my friend came to me and asked if he could stay at my house for a few days because his had burnt down, I could go look at the burnt down house as could anyone else, in other words even if it is in my mind I could provide what I consider external empirical evidence to show that it was a past event (not currently happening)

If you believe some theorist, the passage of time is an illusion (B Theory of Time). You are not enduring from one minute to the next. You are definitely not the same person of five minutes ago--because that person still exists in that time slice and, well, another person exists in this time slice and next week's person already exists. Are we not justified to believe that we endure and that the past is really in the past and the future has not happened? What proof can be given for either?

Quote:3) Immaterial objects
What do you mean by this exactly ?  A concept remains a concept till it is shown empirically.

Concepts (abstract objects) are real things--only held in the mind. We cannot prove the existence of abstract objects like numbers. Are we justified in believing they exist?

Quote:4) Free Will
Is just a feeling that it must be so, you actually have no reason at all to believe it is so which is why I asked for evidence. Personally i never envisioned that we had what you call free will.

As in the other three examples, we are justified in believing we have free will because that is what we experience happening. A default belief if you will. Absent any reasons to believe our senses/reasoning are deceiving us, why would we doubt them? Just like I don't have to prove that other minds exist, I don't have to prove that the past exists, and I don't have to prove the abstract objects are real concepts that apply to the real word, I don't have to prove free will. Think my view is the fringe? Every society and culture that has ever existed believes that we have the ability to choose our actions and are responsible for them. The burden is squarely on those that deny it.

Quote:Also you are making this claim outside of simple belief in free will, you are saying it must be so to make an excuse/reason for evil, this is against intuitive thinking that a unproven loving deity and evil simply are not compatible, that an abused child and a loving god who has the power to intervene who does not. You are effectively because of your beliefs constructing excuses why this could be, as you cannot know god's mind and free will becomes vital to your case (though not all christians agree on free will of course).  You are simply dismissing one intuitive argument for the one you favour out of a prior belief.

Arguing against a premise because of how I might have come to believe it is a genetic fallacy (and irrelevant to any truth value).

Quote:Can anyone show free will does not exists, I'm not sure,  but it can be shown that upbringing, indoctrination and surroundings play a large part in what we believe to be true (and hence decisions we make free or not) I can find zero evidence we are free to make decisions that our circumstances and prior thoughts don't play a part in and influence, including what to believe about gods.

Wait a minute. Free will does not say we are free from our circumstances and prior thoughts. Of course they play a role. It is just that we are not a slave to them--we could choose something if we want to. Could you define your view? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#...philosophy
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-18-2019, 04:14 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 03:32 PM)SteveII Wrote: ... there are categories of things where one must trust one's cognitive faculties ... one's inclined to believe in immaterial objects ...

"Immaterial objects" is an oxymoron, betraying that the concept is incomplete; the product of an inadequate cognitive faculty, and certainly not, as implied, a universally shared one.

We observe something we cannot personally explain in terms of our knowledge of the material.  We cannot leap from there to conclude it must be immaterial, particularly because no one has even begun to define the immaterial (so we wind up with oxymorons like immaterial object).  What's most likely is that whatever strikes us an inexplicable is only exposing our ignorance.

The most powerful evidence against supposing an immaterial dimension of reality is that no scientific inquiry has ever found itself following that arrow:  only two conclusions emerge:  this is the material explanation, or there's insufficient information to derive an explanation.  No inquiry has concluded the explanation must have an immaterial component.  The only factions of human inquiry that suppose immateriality are the ignorant whose "inquiries" are not genuine inquiry but confirmation hunts.  They find a pebble on a beach and proclaim that beaches aren't sand because here's a pebble.

What are you going on about? The context was pretty clear--philosophy of the mind and all. How about I use the word "abstract" objects. Is that better or do you think that abstract objects do not exist?
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-20-2019, 04:50 PM)mordant Wrote:
(05-20-2019, 01:59 PM)SteveII Wrote: You are making a category error. Answer these:

Are personal experiences empirical?
Is courtroom testimony of 25 witnesses empirical?
Can any historical event (not video taped) be empirically verified?
Is wondering why there is something rather than nothing an empirical inquiry?
Is the idea that time flows and the past is real empirical?
Is the evolutionary principle of common decent based on empirical knowledge?
Is the statement (as you seem to believe) "empirical knowledge is the only true knowledge" itself empirical?

Hint: the answer to all these is NO.
If by "empirical" you mean "100% substantiated and proven" then the answer to all must be no.

But a more functional definition of "empirical" would be "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

By that definition, the answer to all is IT DEPENDS and if you have decent evidentiary standards and are reasonably pragmatic, a conditional YES.

BTW video is no longer a sure thing, due to "deep fake" technology.

Ultimately nothing is a sure thing but that does not mean we throw our hands up and put "making things up" on an equal footing with reasonable knowledge claims. We can know most things to a reasonable and supportable level of confidence. The things that are not substantiatable by some reasonable preponderance of evidence, we don't make claims concerning at all.

"Reasonable preponderance" is subjective. You cannot know what combinations of facts, beliefs about facts, personal experience, trust in other's experiences, moral reasoning, natural reasoning, or some other category gets them to a belief about a particular question (in this case: there is a God). You cannot claim they are unreasonable because they HAVE reasoned to a conclusion and you DON'T HAVE a defeater for them. Your point seems to be "because of your conclusion I have determined you didn't reason according to the right standards." That is question begging.
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-20-2019, 05:10 PM)SteveII Wrote: "Reasonable preponderance" is subjective. You cannot know what combinations of facts, beliefs about facts, personal experience, trust in other's experiences, moral reasoning, natural reasoning, or some other category gets them to a belief about a particular question (in this case: there is a God). You cannot claim they are unreasonable because they HAVE reasoned to a conclusion and you DON'T HAVE a defeater for them. Your point seems to be "because of your conclusion I have determined you didn't reason according to the right standards." That is question begging.
I'm not sure where you are getting that from. You could have simply asked me.

But I'll answer as if you did, rather than putting ideas in my head and words in my mouth.

I reject claims of the existence of god as they are inherently unfalsifiable by their very nature. I equally reject claims of the non-existence of god for the same reason. No one can hold a philosophically supportable belief either way. God is sheer speculation, and so offers no utility. I am indifferent to the whole question.

I was speaking generically about "reasonable preponderance". There is no evidence available AT ALL concerning deities, so we never even get to evaluate the preponderance because there is nothing TO preponder.
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-20-2019, 04:51 PM)SteveII Wrote: What if we are just minds designed to have a virtual life? Or a brain in a vat? Or part of a computer simulation or The Matrix? Or some other system we cannot understand? It is impossible to disprove this--yet we are said to be justified in assuming the external world exists and there are other minds like ours actually interacting.

Well like I said, we are justified by what we call empirical evidence, you may argue this does not exist, but given our senses of the world around us we are justified,  In other words other people are not just an 'idea'


Quote:If you believe some theorist, the passage of time is an illusion (B Theory of Time). You are not enduring from one minute to the next. You are definitely not the same person of five minutes ago--because that person still exists in that time slice and, well, another person exists in this time slice and next week's person already exists. Are we not justified to believe that we endure and that the past is really in the past and the future has not happened? What proof can be given for either?

Again given our understanding of empirical proof  we are justified.  We may misunderstand time completely though BTheory would not hep your cosmological argument.  I'm reading a book at the moment called 'The order of time' that questions everything we know about time.  In any case if BTheory time is shown to be true then we would change the way we relate to (at least in the scientific sense) time, it would be the perfect example of how things can 'seem just so' but in fact not be.


Quote:Concepts (abstract objects) are real things--only held in the mind. We cannot prove the existence of abstract objects like numbers. Are we justified in believing they exist?

well things like numbers are our way of describing the world around us.


Quote:As in the other three examples, we are justified in believing we have free will because that is what we experience happening.

How can you show free will is happening you mean you make choices, how do you know that's free from influence.more importantly were not asking if you had choices and you chose one, I'm asking if you can show you could have chosen differently.

All you experience is choices and decisions, there is no reason at all to believe you can make any decision regardless of preceding thoughts.

Quote:A default belief if you will. Absent any reasons to believe our senses/reasoning are deceiving us, why would we doubt them?

Really, you believe everything you perceive to be true ?  No one is asking you to doubt that you have thoughts, or that you make choices, but to proclaim you can do so freely apart from any brain matter is making claims you simply cannot support.

Quote:Just like I don't have to prove that other minds exist,
[

Well that's just the point, given our understanding you can in fact empirically show other brains, therefore other minds exist.
 
Quote:I don't have to prove that the past exists,

Of course not, we have very good empirical reasons to believe a series of events occurred in what we have named the 'past'

Quote:and I don't have to prove the abstract objects are real concepts that apply to the real word,

Well abstracts like numbers for instance are attached to real things, or an attempt to understand or explain something real, I can't say i believe in 'numbers' as such, just that i use them as a medium to get results I can use in the empirical world.  

Quote:I don't have to prove free will. Think my view is the fringe? Every society and culture that has ever existed believes that we have the ability to choose our actions and are responsible for them. The burden is squarely on those that deny it.

I'm not denying it, simply asking you to prove it, after all our perceptions could simply be false.
 If you have proof, then let's see it it. If it's your position that because through the ages (till recently) everyone has believed this therefore it must be true, then fine. But you are not basing it on any evidence.  

Quote:Arguing against a premise because of how I might have come to believe it is a genetic fallacy (and irrelevant to any truth value).

I'm simply asking for evidence as it's so central to your argument, do you have any ?

Quote:Wait a minute. Free will does not say we are free from our circumstances and prior thoughts. Of course they play a role. It is just that we are not a slave to them--we could choose something if we want to. Could you define your view? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#...philosophy

There are many views in your link, I'm not sure which one of them could be true, Can you show that for any decision you have made that you could have made a different choice, especially as you know very well this is being challenged in neuroscience, you are the one saying it's vital for your particular interpretation of the defence of the PoE , I'm just asking if you can prove it.

Either you can show it or you can't, if your argument rests solely on 'well most people believe it so' then fine.
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
The following 1 user Likes possibletarian's post:
  • julep
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-20-2019, 04:57 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-18-2019, 04:14 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 03:32 PM)SteveII Wrote: ... there are categories of things where one must trust one's cognitive faculties ... one's inclined to believe in immaterial objects ...

"Immaterial objects" is an oxymoron, betraying that the concept is incomplete; the product of an inadequate cognitive faculty, and certainly not, as implied, a universally shared one.

We observe something we cannot personally explain in terms of our knowledge of the material.  We cannot leap from there to conclude it must be immaterial, particularly because no one has even begun to define the immaterial (so we wind up with oxymorons like immaterial object).  What's most likely is that whatever strikes us an inexplicable is only exposing our ignorance.

The most powerful evidence against supposing an immaterial dimension of reality is that no scientific inquiry has ever found itself following that arrow:  only two conclusions emerge:  this is the material explanation, or there's insufficient information to derive an explanation.  No inquiry has concluded the explanation must have an immaterial component.  The only factions of human inquiry that suppose immateriality are the ignorant whose "inquiries" are not genuine inquiry but confirmation hunts.  They find a pebble on a beach and proclaim that beaches aren't sand because here's a pebble.

What are you going on about? The context was pretty clear--philosophy of the mind and all. How about I use the word "abstract" objects. Is that better or do you think that abstract objects do not exist?

Abstract objects do not "exist". 
They are (learned) ideas in minds that have learned by trial and error what to name them. 
They have no existence. 
Talk about category errors. Doh.
Test
The following 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • possibletarian, julep, brunumb
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-20-2019, 09:04 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(05-20-2019, 04:51 PM)SteveII Wrote: What if we are just minds designed to have a virtual life? Or a brain in a vat? Or part of a computer simulation or The Matrix? Or some other system we cannot understand? It is impossible to disprove this--yet we are said to be justified in assuming the external world exists and there are other minds like ours actually interacting.

Well like I said, we are justified by what we call empirical evidence, you may argue this does not exist, but given our senses of the world around us we are justified,  In other words other people are not just an 'idea'

Wrong level. I am talking about the level that is seeing the empirical evidence. How do we even know we are seeing the outside world? We feel we are justified in believing we are--not because we are seeing it. That is not something you can prove. In the same way, we feel our minds are making choices. That is not something you can prove. You are insisting that I prove free will. I insist that you prove that the external world is real (as you are asserting). Prove there are actually other minds. Prove that the past is real. These are examples of a category of things that cannot be proven because they must be assumed to interpret our sense perception.

Quote:
Quote:If you believe some theorist, the passage of time is an illusion (B Theory of Time). You are not enduring from one minute to the next. You are definitely not the same person of five minutes ago--because that person still exists in that time slice and, well, another person exists in this time slice and next week's person already exists. Are we not justified to believe that we endure and that the past is really in the past and the future has not happened? What proof can be given for either?

Again given our understanding of empirical proof  we are justified.  We may misunderstand time completely though BTheory would not hep your cosmological argument.  I'm reading a book at the moment called 'The order of time' that questions everything we know about time.  In any case if BTheory time is shown to be true then we would change the way we relate to (at least in the scientific sense) time, it would be the perfect example of how things can 'seem just so' but in fact not be.

I'm not sure you can prove the B Theory of Time. Really, what logic would you use? Perhaps time travel would prove it. Making a mathematical model is not proof of anything, ever. A mathematical model either describes the real world or it does not.

Quote:
Quote:Concepts (abstract objects) are real things--only held in the mind. We cannot prove the existence of abstract objects like numbers. Are we justified in believing they exist?

well things like numbers are our way of describing the world around us.


Quote:As in the other three examples, we are justified in believing we have free will because that is what we experience happening.

How can you show free will is happening you mean you make choices, how do you know that's free from influence.more importantly were not asking if you had choices and you chose one, I'm asking if you can show you could have chosen differently.

All you experience is choices and decisions, there is no reason at all to believe you can make any decision regardless of preceding thoughts.

And absent a defeater, why should we think what our experience of choice and decision is wrong? I think your underlying assumption of naturalism is providing you the reason--which makes your point question-begging.

1. If naturalism is true, we have no free will (all is determined)
2. Naturalism is true
3. Free will does not exist (determinism). Free will is an illusion

nat·u·ral·ism
/ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlizəm/
noun
2.the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

Quote:
Quote:Wait a minute. Free will does not say we are free from our circumstances and prior thoughts. Of course they play a role. It is just that we are not a slave to them--we could choose something if we want to. Could you define your view? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#...philosophy

There are many views in your link, I'm not sure which one of them could be true, Can you show that for any decision you have made that you could have made a different choice, especially as you know very well this is being challenged in neuroscience, you are the one saying it's vital for your particular interpretation of the defence of the PoE , I'm just asking if you can prove it.

Either you can show it or you can't, if your argument rests solely on 'well most people believe it so' then fine.

I could have chosen not to respond to this post. I don't respond to many of them. That is my experience.

One the other hand, your position is that you could not have failed to respond to this post. That is not what you experienced--that is something you believe in sprite of your experience. I think it is the assumption of naturalism which I explained above.

Sure it is being challenged in neuroscience--and most scientist actually agree with you. Not because of evidence, but because of the assumption of naturalism.
Reply

The Problem Of Evil
(05-23-2019, 02:42 PM)SteveII Wrote: Wrong level. I am talking about the level that is seeing the empirical evidence. How do we even know we are seeing the outside world? We feel we are justified in believing we are--not because we are seeing it. That is not something you can prove. In the same way, we feel our minds are making choices. That is not something you can prove. You are insisting that I prove free will. I insist that you prove that the external world is real (as you are asserting). Prove there are actually other minds. Prove that the past is real. These are examples of a category of things that cannot be proven because they must be assumed to interpret our sense perception.

Actually I'm not asserting the external world is real, I'm saying that even in our own internal systems we can provide what we believe is empirical proof.

You cannot show any evidence, even internally that free will is true.


Quote:I'm not sure you can prove the B Theory of Time. Really, what logic would you use? Perhaps time travel would prove it. Making a mathematical model is not proof of anything, ever. A mathematical model either describes the real world or it does not.

I never said it was real, it was you who proposed it, if I'm truthful  I really am not sure, the point being that again we can provide, even if it is all internal empirical data that would imply that time passes in events.

Quote:And absent a defeater, why should we think what our experience of choice and decision is wrong? I think your underlying assumption of naturalism is providing you the reason--which makes your point question-begging.

1. If naturalism is true, we have no free will (all is determined)
2. Naturalism is true
3. Free will does not exist (determinism). Free will is an illusion

nat·u·ral·ism
/ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlizəm/
noun
2.the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

Oh I'm not presenting any argument you are, I'm simply asking if you can answer the question with something other than, I have always believed it to be true, therefore it is.

Quote:I could have chosen not to respond to this post. I don't respond to many of them. That is my experience.

You could have, but the question is, could you have free chosen to do otherwise given the events in your brain leading up to that choice.  In other words can you show that given exactly the same sequences of events leading up to you responding, could you chose otherwise, is it even sensible to think you could have ?



Quote:Sure it is being challenged in neuroscience--and most scientist actually agree with you. Not because of evidence, but because of the assumption of naturalism.

Because naturalism has proven a reliable way of looking at the world.
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)