Are atheists determinists?

[True Scotsman]

It does not contradict it. I generally agree with the principle, and I certainly agree with you that consciousness exists, but the rest of your post mistakenly conflates consciousness with free will.





Independence can have an original cause. A great nation can grant a colony independence, and it will indeed by independent thenceforth, and its independence will be "true", but only because of a conscious act by a greater power.



I haven't contradicted any fact of reality, and you haven't shown how my claim contradicts that existence holds primacy. You could go a good ways towards refuting my claim if you'd offer some plausible explanation of how physical matter is able to exert will and make decisions.

It does contradict. I'm not conflating the two. One is an attribute of the other. It doesn't matter what attribute you are talking about if you claim that it is the way it is because of some consciousness's action then it contradicts the primacy of existence and is false.

If the original cause is "a conscious act by a greater power" that violates the primacy of existence and is impossible. Something which is created and maintained by a consciousness certainly is not independent of anyone's consciousness.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You are claiming that we are the way we are because some god created us and that we are the way we are because this god wants us to be that way and yet that does not violate the primacy of existence. It clearly does. The primacy of existence is a self evident fact of reality.

There is no escape for you from this principle because there is no escape from reality. In claiming that your god gave us our free will you affirm the primacy of existence because presumable you are not saying that your claim is true because you want it to be true or wish it to be true. You're saying it is true regardless of what anyone thinks. Like I said as soon as you say "it is" you have affirmed the primacy of existence but the content of your claim directly contradicts it. You have committed the fallacy of the stolen concept.

Your claim that atoms don't make decisions therefore brains can't is absurd. Atoms don't digest food either but stomachs do. Atoms aren't alive but living organisms are. Atoms aren't conscious but organisms are. Atoms don't decide but Human consciousness does. Just because we don't know how something works does not mean a god did it.

 

[True Scotsman]

Do you have an answer to hard solipsism?

Hi Chany,

Sorry I didn't get back to you last night.

I do have an answer to hard solipsism. My answer is that it is so obviously self contradictory that I can't believe anyone would take it seriously. If we can't be sure anything exists then no knowledge is possible including the knowledge that we can't be sure anything exists. If we are just a brain in a vat then by what means are we conscious. If we have no senses then how do we form the concepts "vat" and "brain" or any other concept. This idea that we are just a brain in a vat completely drops the context of how our brain functions in forming concepts.

Solipsism is rationalism in the extreme. It is an attack on man's mind. If what we perceive isn't real then what we posses is not consciousness. If man's mind is not valid then neither are any concepts he forms including the concepts used to argue for Solipsism. All attacks on the validity of man's mind are doomed to fail because they commit the fallacy of the stolen concept, they reject the axiom of "consciousness". the validity of the senses and man's mind is axiomatic. It is presupposed by any investigation into the validity of the senses and man's mind.

 

[Chesterton]

You have made a whole lot of assertions and it is perfectly understandable when people grill you.

I'd like to hear other people's explanations too. And without deflection.

 

[Chesterton]

I've never heard that objection before.

Seem to whom? Is that your judgment, or is there some link you could share that covers this issue?

eudaimonia,

Mark

As best I can tell, they both speak of higher (later) systems influencing lower (earlier) systems. An analogy might be as if the development of the computer could alter the nature of electrons which existed first, or give them some attribute they didn't previously have.

 

[Chesterton]

It does contradict. I'm not conflating the two. One is an attribute of the other. It doesn't matter what attribute you are talking about if you claim that it is the way it is because of some consciousness's action then it contradicts the primacy of existence and is false.

If the original cause is "a conscious act by a greater power" that violates the primacy of existence and is impossible. Something which is created and maintained by a consciousness certainly is not independent of anyone's consciousness.

Then by the same token something created and maintained by non-consciousness is not independent. Then your claim of having free will is false.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You are claiming that we are the way we are because some god created us and that we are the way we are because this god wants us to be that way and yet that does not violate the primacy of existence. It clearly does. The primacy of existence is a self evident fact of reality.

There is no escape for you from this principle because there is no escape from reality. In claiming that your god gave us our free will you affirm the primacy of existence because presumable you are not saying that your claim is true because you want it to be true or wish it to be true. You're saying it is true regardless of what anyone thinks. Like I said as soon as you say "it is" you have affirmed the primacy of existence but the content of your claim directly contradicts it. You have committed the fallacy of the stolen concept.

No, I'm merely claiming God gave us will because it's the simplest, most likely explanation, especially considering there's no conceivable other explanation so far. If you have another explanation, go for it.

Your claim that atoms don't make decisions therefore brains can't is absurd. Atoms don't digest food either but stomachs do. Atoms aren't alive but living organisms are. Atoms aren't conscious but organisms are. Atoms don't decide but Human consciousness does. Just because we don't know how something works does not mean a god did it.

Just because no one can come up with an idea which better fits your atheistic beliefs means I should abandon my sensible idea? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As best I can tell, they both speak of higher (later) systems influencing lower (earlier) systems. An analogy might be as if the development of the computer could alter the nature of electrons which existed first, or give them some attribute they didn't previously have.

No, that's not what is being said. Lower systems aren't earlier systems. Both higher and lower systems co-exist and interact in normal time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

No, that's not what is being said. Lower systems aren't earlier systems. Both higher and lower systems co-exist and interact in normal time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, that's true of all systems, machines and organisms. But then what do those ideas have to say about free will?