Atheism and nihilism

[Ken-1122]

You can make an argument that it does make it true when we examine how that moral value is used in real life situations. It becomes real and true by the way it is given real and truth status to the point that without it humans could not function.

Can you give an example of this?

That it is real enough to justify it as true in the light of there being no better explanation.

No. You never proclaim something as true because you can’t come up with a better explanation.

So we are justified to accept this and not go with something else which is less real or true. That is how the argument works not just for moral values but for most things. IE we are justified to think that you are really sitting at your computer writing this post and no in some virtual reality.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To claim I am sitting in a chair is an ordinary claim. Most of the questionable claims of your bible are not ordinary claims thus require extra ordinary amount of evidence to justify belief.

I have already. If under subjective morality people can have different views about honesty including that there is no such thing as honesty

That’s not subjective morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

well, I'm not sure if I used the phrase "to believe in",
but would you agree that the term "atheist" says that you don't believe in God?

If we assume “don’t believe in” means to not accept the claims people make about God; my answer is yes.

if so, what do you believe in?

I believe in everything you believe in; except for God.

but there might be an even simpler way to phrase it.
"atheist" says what you are not.
then, what are you?

I am a skeptic, meaning I am skeptical of anything that doesn’t make sense to me. Because my skepticism includes God, people label me atheist. But I really just consider myself a skeptic.

what are some things that sound reasonable to you?

Everything I know about math sounds reasonable to me. Almost everything I know about science sounds reasonable to me. There are lots of things that sound reasonable to me; too much to list.

 

[Ken-1122]

So is your ideal of moral perfection achievable for you. Or are you always trying to do better to reach that perfect idea or a moral person

My idea of moral perfection is in a constant state of change. The more I learn, the more it changes. Though my current idea of moral perfection may be achievable, I would only see it as perfect until my perception changes, then I will see it as flawed.

OK so let me ask do you think there are grades of moral behavior that are more moral than others. Like a scale with degrees of rightness and wrongness. IE physically or sexually abusing a child is a more serious and degrading act than say denying them time on the computer for misbehaving.

Yes there are various degrees of bad behavior.

Well, we do sort of know God or a god. Any god that has been presented has always been one that is transcendent. So when I say it is a fallacy to compare a human to a god when determining moral behavior I mean we are comparing two different abilities and realities which will have an influence on what they can and cannot do.

Most gods are beyond our material reality. We know that we can only act a certain way within our reality. The Christian God for example is all-knowing, all-powerful, and the creator of our material world/reality. So this puts God in a different league. Being all-knowing means He can know all the circumstances and outcomes of all actions which allow Him to know what is the best way to act for the best outcome. As humans, we cannot do this. So God is in a better position to be morally perfect.

How do you know God is all knowing? How do you know he is morally superior to you? What method do you employ to confirm this? Is it just a matter of taking someone else's word for it?

That would be a paradoxical position to take for the Christian God as we know Him through Christ. Belief in God is not through blind faith. It is also using our rational thought.

If you are capable of rational thought, can’t you employ this rational thought to decipher right from wrong?

It is not that Christ wrote the Bible but that witnesses did and we also have non-Biblical support. If you wrote a book and claimed to be perfect and the son of God then I guess you would also have changed the world. But you didn't.

So writing a book and changing the world makes you God? Hitler wrote a book and changed the world; Mohammad wrote a book and changed the world. Countless people; good and bad have written books and changed the world; does this make them God? No.

But that is a logical fallacy that because morals and gods vary that must mean there is no objective or truth to there being one God and moral truths.

Please explain why it is a logical fallacy

 

[stevevw]

My idea of moral perfection is in a constant state of change. The more I learn, the more it changes. Though my current idea of moral perfection may be achievable, I would only see it as perfect until my perception changes, then I will see it as flawed.

So wouldn't that mean that though you think your idea of moral perfection is achievable it really isn't perfect as you constantly find flaws in it?

Yes there are various degrees of bad behavior.

Therefore if there are degrees of moral behavior wouldn't that logically follow that the scale of moral behavior could range from 0 which is morally perfect to the most horrible immoral acts.

How do you know God is all-knowing? How do you know he is morally superior to you? What method do you employ to confirm this? Is it just a matter of taking someone else's word for it?

I think its more than taking someone's word for it. As mentioned there are arguments for God and morality which hold a lot of weight. First, we can make a moral argument for God. Then we can make an argument for which God and His character. This has already been done and I have posted links for this already.

If you are capable of rational thought, can’t you employ this rational thought to decipher right from wrong?

Yes, that is part of determining objective morality. First, we intuitively know there are certain moral values. But as a check, we have our rational cognition. That is why it is important to have an independent set of moral objectives that we can use to check if they meet those moral standards. For example, using Christ's teachings we can measure morality. But if we did not have an objective moral standard then we could end up rationalizing any personal view as being the best and true morality.

The thing about human thought alone without any independent reference point is that we can be influenced into making anything moral. Humans are susceptible to self-deception, rationalizing personal motives as being morally good, being influenced by money and power to make something morally good. We can come up with good reasons why they are good while being blinded by the truth of whether it is really morally right or wrong.

So writing a book and changing the world makes you God? Hitler wrote a book and changed the world; Mohammad wrote a book and changed the world. Countless people; good and bad have written books and changed the world; does this make them God? No.

Well first I would say it would have to promote moral good and not bad so that counts out Hitler. Second, it isn't just about writing a book. There is a host of other factors that need to be considered. I have already posted some of these. For example, all religions claim moral truth but there can only by one. So investigation needs to be made into which one.

As mentioned there are arguments for why the Christian God is the only true religion. We can show evidence of how the other religions either don't even claim exclusivity and therefore are not even considered a candidate for moral truth or they contradict their own moral positions. I won't go into that as this is a big and complex debate that would sidetrack this one but will give a couple of links.
How do you know that Christianity is the one true worldview?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWY-6xBA0Pk
4 Reasons Why Christianity is True
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ata3XrCiGtY

Strangely enough, the 3 main religions of the world agree on which God anyway. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity use the same God of the Old Testament. So that speaks a lot about God as described in the Bible. All the other religions of worth mostly support Polytheism which is a paradox to moral truth. The only visible God we have is Christ who is the God of the Old testament made flesh? He has had the most influence on the world and an argument can be made for Him as well which I have already posted. No other religion can even claim that as these were humans who professed God or gods.

Please explain why it is a logical fallacy

Its a Correlation/Causation or a Hasty Generalization logical fallacy to say that just because morals or gods vary that there is no one true set of morals and God. That's because the claim doesn't directly prove that there is not a true set of morals or one true God but rather relies on a single correlating support to make a general claim.

It is like saying because I don't have chocolate flavor in front of me in among all the various flavors that chocolate flavor must not exist. So applied to your claim would be because you can only see subjective morality that would mean objective morality must not exist. You've made a conclusion based on a correlation that may not be all the evidence or even a true indication of what is happening.

The Correlation/Causation Fallacy
If two things appear to be correlated, this doesn't necessarily indicate that one of those things irrefutably caused the other thing.
The Hasty Generalization Fallacy
This fallacy occurs when someone draws expansive conclusions based on inadequate or insufficient evidence. In other words, they jump to conclusions about the validity of a proposition with some -- but not enough -- evidence to back it up, and overlook potential counterarguments.

The fact of diversity—if it is a fact, which some question (see section 4a below)—does not logically entail moral relativism. It does not even entail that objectivism is false. After all, there are diverse views on how human beings came to exist, but that does not imply that there is no single, objectively correct account.
Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In other words just because there is moral diversity it does not follow that moral relativism is true or the only morality. Nor does it mean objective morality is false.

 

[Leaf473]

I believe in everything you believe in; except for God.

do you believe that Angels and demons exist?
or at least accept the possibility they exist?

I am a skeptic, meaning I am skeptical of anything that doesn’t make sense to me. Because my skepticism includes God, people label me atheist. But I really just consider myself a skeptic.

I think I understand what you're saying, so thanks for your answer!

Everything I know about math sounds reasonable to me. Almost everything I know about science sounds reasonable to me. There are lots of things that sound reasonable to me; too much to list.

right, just a few examples are enough to move the conversation forward, imo.

as far as I know, the current thinking in the physics world is that the motion of all particles in the universe is either deterministic or random, or a combination of both.

does that sound reasonable to you?

if so, do humans have the ability to choose, and is that choice the product of something other than determinism or randomness?

 

[Ken-1122]

do you believe that Angels and demons exist?
or at least accept the possibility they exist?

If by Angels you mean God's minions, and by Demons you mean Satan's minions; because I don't believe in either God or Satan, I don't believe in their minions either

right, just a few examples are enough to move the conversation forward, imo.

as far as I know, the current thinking in the physics world is that the motion of all particles in the universe is either deterministic or random, or a combination of both.

does that sound reasonable to you?

if so, do humans have the ability to choose, and is that choice the product of something other than determinism or randomness?

If Deterministic means controlled by an outside force, and random means no control at all, then neither of those options sound reasonable to me because I believe as humans we have the ability to choose our own actions.

 

[Ken-1122]

So wouldn't that mean that though you think your idea of moral perfection is achievable it really isn't perfect as you constantly find flaws in it?

Moral Perfection is subjective, not objective.

Therefore if there are degrees of moral behavior wouldn't that logically follow that the scale of moral behavior could range from 0 which is morally perfect to the most horrible immoral acts.

0 being morally perfect according to whose scale?

I think its more than taking someone's word for it. As mentioned there are arguments for God and morality which hold a lot of weight. First, we can make a moral argument for God. Then we can make an argument for which God and His character. This has already been done and I have posted links for this already.

You did not answer my question. Again; how do you know God is all knowing, and how do you know he is morally superior to you? Let me phrase it another way. If you believe “X” is wrong, but God says “X” is right, what method do you employ to verify God is not mistaken?

Yes, that is part of determining objective morality. First, we intuitively know there are certain moral values. But as a check, we have our rational cognition. That is why it is important to have an independent set of moral objectives that we can use to check if they meet those moral standards.

That’s not using rational thought to decipher right from wrong, that’s using an independent set of moral objectives to decipher right from wrong.

For example, using Christ's teachings we can measure morality. But if we did not have an objective moral standard then we could end up rationalizing any personal view as being the best and true morality.

That would only be the case if you can’t use rational thought to decipher right from wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Moral Perfection is subjective, not objective.

Yet you object to God being morally perfect. If it's subjective then you cannot say that God is not morally perfect. You cannot really say anything about other people's claims to moral perfection as you have no way of knowing what is really moral perfection of not. In fact, the only moral perfection would be God as His perfection is outside the human subjective view.

0 being morally perfect according to whose scale?

Well, that's the point. For subjectivists, the only perfection they can claim is their own idea of what perfection is. But I was trying to determine even if that was the case that still individuals would never be able to reach perfection because as you said you keep finding flaws. So your claim to being morally perfect is unfounded. So this supports what I said that humans are fallible morally.

You did not answer my question. Again; how do you know God is all-knowing, and how do you know he is morally superior to you? Let me phrase it another way. If you believe “X” is wrong, but God says “X” is right, what method do you employ to verify God is not mistaken?

I have answered the question. It is the logical argument that can be made. We know we cannot go and ask or see God so we then have to make arguments based on indirect evidence and logical truth claims which are a common form of establishing a claim or truth.

For example if there are objective morals then it logically follows that there is an all-knowing and perfectly good God. Why because morals can only happen between people yet the source has to be grounded outside humans. The source has to be all-knowing to know the moral truth as objective morals are making a 'truth claim' and the source has to be perfectly good as the source cannot be undermined and needs to be the ultimate good. That is exactly who God is so he fits the bill perfectly.

So then we would go about providing support for objective morality which I have done already a number of times. The main support is that humans intuitively know that certain moral values are always good despite their personal subjective opinions. They live like that and can not deny or hide it. Otherwise, the logic from the above argument is that if there is no God then there is no morality at all because there could be no way of determining moral truth and we all know that this is not the case as we know there are moral truths. IE the following article has a few arguments for objective morality. Here is a couple

Argument for Absolutism: Moral Experience
Every one of us remembers from early childhood experience what it feels like to be morally obligated. To bump up against an unyielding moral wall. This memory is enshrined in the words "ought," "should," "right," and "wrong."

Moral absolutism is certainly based on experience. For instance, let's say last night you promised your friend you would help them at 8:00 this morning. Let's say he has to move his furniture before noon. But you were up 'til 3:00 am. And when the alarm rings at 7:00, you are very tired. You experience two things—the desire to sleep, and the obligation to get up. The two are generically different. You experience no obligation to sleep, and no desire to get up. You are moved, in one way, by your own desire for sleep, and you are moved in a very different way by what you think you ought to do.

Your feelings appear from the inside out, so to speak, while your conscience appears from the outside in. Within you is the desire to sleep, and this may move you to the external deed of shutting off the alarm and creeping back to bad. But, if instead, you get up to fulfill your promise to your friend, it will be because you chose to respond to a very different kind of thing: the perceived moral quality of the deed of fulfilling your promise, as opposed to the perceived moral quality of the deed of refusing to fulfill it. What you perceive as right, or obligatory—getting up—pulls you from without, from itself, from its own nature. But the desires you feel as attractive—going back to sleep—push you from within, from yourself, from your own nature.

Argument for Absolutism: Ad Hominem
Fourth, there is the ad hominem argument. Even the relativist always reacts with a moral protest when he is treated immorally. The man who appeals to the relativistic principle of "I gotta be me," who justified breaking his promise of fidelity to his own wife, whom he wants to leave for another woman, will then break his fidelity to his relativistic principle when his own wife uses that principle to justify leaving him for another man. This is not exceptional, but typical. It looks like the origin of relativism is more personal than philosophical. More in the hypocrisy than in the hypothesis.
Library : A Refutation of Moral Relativism

Right, wrong, black, white
Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact. That means if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you and for everyone else too. And if someone claims that murder is OK, then they’re mistaken.
This is the way many of us tend to think and talk about many moral issues, not just murder. We refer to moral facts. And we prove our moral stance is the correct one by appealing to these facts.
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It's how we think about morality itself

The moral argument for God
Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterprise.
Premise 2: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.
Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational, transcendent source (logically follows from 1, 2, and 3).
Premise 5: This source is what we call God
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0

That’s not using rational thought to decipher right from wrong, that’s using an independent set of moral objectives to decipher right from wrong.

Yes first we have an independent set of moral standards that we can use as the measure for what is right and wrong. Not our own subjective ones but independent of ourselves. For example, the code of conduct for an organization will have a set of behavioral standards they want everyone to follow. So a worker will check their behavior against those standards to see if they are behaving correctly.

Yet these standards are based on universal and objective values that many organizations use. So we sort of know these behavioral standards within us anyway. This is where we use our rational thinking to make sure these standards make sense to us and adhere to our intuition about right and wrong. If the organization standards asked a worker to overcharge the customers or treat them bad we can determine this is wrong by rationalizing that this goes against our intuitive universal knowledge about what is right and wrong.

That would only be the case if you can’t use rational thought to decipher right from wrong.

If morality was only subjective and there were no moral truths then there would be no way of determining what was truly right and wrong. Moral right and wrong would then become what people 'like or dislike', personal opinions, and what was in fashion or on-trend. That could be anything and anyone could argue, rationalize, or justify something is right based on their personal views or hidden motives as to what they want.

Humans are easily corrupted and influenced by personal desires and want. If morality was based on feelings then this would make morality arbitrary as feeling are arbitrary. This comes back to the OP that if there is no God who can give us the reference point to measure what is right and wrong then there would be NO morality.

 

[Leaf473]

If by Angels you mean God's minions, and by Demons you mean Satan's minions; because I don't believe in either God or Satan, I don't believe in their minions either

right, I didn't think you believed in Angels or demons.
that's why I thought it strange that you said that you believe in everything I believe in; except for God.

does at least some part of our consciousness continue after death?
I believe that it does, do you?

If Deterministic means controlled by an outside force, and random means no control at all, then neither of those options sound reasonable to me because I believe as humans we have the ability to choose our own actions.

well, as I understand the situation,
determinism is the idea that the exact state of the universe at any point in time is the only possible outcome of a previous state of the universe.

randomness, as used here, means that every possible state of the universe is equally probable given a previous state of the universe.

using a real life example, you flip a light switch.
assuming everything is in good working order, the light comes on.
there is no choice involved, the light bulb doesn't decide if it's going to come on or not.

this is one of the main ideas of Newtonian physics:
for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

that idea reigned supreme for centuries.
it left no room for any kind of choice anywhere.

assuming that your brain is you, and that there isn't anything like a spirit involved, all of the electrons and chemicals in your brain react the way they have to.
two chemicals don't decide they are not going to react just because they want to make a different choice.

enter quantum theory.
I don't pretend to understand it, but there are a few things that would relate to our discussion.

when we flipped our light switch, it was determined that electrons would move.
but which electrons will move is apparently random.

most people, on a gut level, would say that neither determinism nor randomness are the basis for what we think of as our ability to choose.

in your view, what gives us the ability to choose?

 

[Ken-1122]

right, I didn't think you believed in Angels or demons.
that's why I thought it strange that you said that you believe in everything I believe in; except for God.

You’re right! I should have phrased it differently; perhaps saying I don’t believe in God or anything related to God.

does at least some part of our consciousness continue after death?
I believe that it does, do you?

No. If it did, we wouldn’t be dead.

well, as I understand the situation,
determinism is the idea that the exact state of the universe at any point in time is the only possible outcome of a previous state of the universe.

randomness, as used here, means that every possible state of the universe is equally probable given a previous state of the universe.

Yeah; neither of those sound realistic to me.

using a real life example, you flip a light switch.
assuming everything is in good working order, the light comes on.
there is no choice involved, the light bulb doesn't decide if it's going to come on or not.

Agreed. Unlike humans, the light bulb is not conscious.

this is one of the main ideas of Newtonian physics:
for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

that idea reigned supreme for centuries.
it left no room for any kind of choice anywhere.

assuming that your brain is you, and that there isn't anything like a spirit involved, all of the electrons and chemicals in your brain react the way they have to.
two chemicals don't decide they are not going to react just because they want to make a different choice.

True! Chemicals and electrons aren’t conscious

enter quantum theory.
I don't pretend to understand it, but there are a few things that would relate to our discussion.

when we flipped our light switch, it was determined that electrons would move.
but which electrons will move is apparently random.

most people, on a gut level, would say that neither determinism nor randomness are the basis for what we think of as our ability to choose.

Count me in as one of those people.

in your view, what gives us the ability to choose?

We are conscious. Conscious meaning to be aware of our surroundings and the ability to act according to this awareness.

However; I’ve got a feeling what I call conscious, you might call a spirit or a soul.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yet you object to God being morally perfect. If it's subjective then you cannot say that God is not morally perfect.

When I say he is not perfect, I’m saying he does not meet my subjective standard of perfection

You cannot really say anything about other people's claims to moral perfection as you have no way of knowing what is really moral perfection of not.

I do have a way of knowing my standard of moral perfection.

In fact, the only moral perfection would be God as His perfection is outside the human subjective view.

My dog’s standards are outside the human subjective view as well; that doesn’t make it perfect.

Well, that's the point. For subjectivists, the only perfection they can claim is their own idea of what perfection is. But I was trying to determine even if that was the case that still individuals would never be able to reach perfection because as you said you keep finding flaws.

Not so much as I find flaws, but I change my mind on what constitutes a flaw.

I have answered the question. It is the logical argument that can be made. We know we cannot go and ask or see God so we then have to make arguments based on indirect evidence and logical truth claims which are a common form of establishing a claim or truth.

For example if there are objective morals then it logically follows that there is an all-knowing and perfectly good God. Why because morals can only happen between people yet the source has to be grounded outside humans. The source has to be all-knowing to know the moral truth as objective morals are making a 'truth claim' and the source has to be perfectly good as the source cannot be undermined and needs to be the ultimate good. That is exactly who God is so he fits the bill perfectly.

Thus far you have used no logic, all you’ve done is made baseless assumptions. You have not explained how you know God is everything you claim him to be. Admit it; you are just taking someone else's word for it; you’re using faith.

Yes first we have an independent set of moral standards that we can use as the measure for what is right and wrong. Not our own subjective ones but independent of ourselves. For example, the code of conduct for an organization will have a set of behavioral standards they want everyone to follow. So a worker will check their behavior against those standards to see if they are behaving correctly.

The code of conduct you speak of is not independent of mankind, it is the creation of people no better than you or I. My question is how do you know when something is morally superior to you!

Yet these standards are based on universal and objective values that many organizations use. So we sort of know these behavioral standards within us anyway. This is where we use our rational thinking to make sure these standards make sense to us and adhere to our intuition about right and wrong. If the organization standards asked a worker to overcharge the customers or treat them bad we can determine this is wrong by rationalizing that this goes against our intuitive universal knowledge about what is right and wrong.

So per your example, if the code of conduct tells you to go against your rational thought, you disobey the code of conduct; does this mean if God tells you to go against your rational thought, you disobey God?

If morality was only subjective and there were no moral truths then there would be no way of determining what was truly right and wrong. Moral right and wrong would then become what people 'like or dislike', personal opinions, and what was in fashion or on-trend. That could be anything and anyone could argue, rationalize, or justify something is right based on their personal views or hidden motives as to what they want.

Humans are easily corrupted and influenced by personal desires and want. If morality was based on feelings then this would make morality arbitrary as feeling are arbitrary.

How is this different than what goes on in the real world?

 

[Moral Orel]

Additionally, I don't see the reasoning process as unfree. When reading an erudite philosopher or a renowned scientist, listening to a virtuoso musician or a skilled debater, or watching an world-class athlete, I don't get the impression that their medium constrains their freedom. I think that is a good analogy for freedom: comparing the 1st-year piano player who can only handle Chopsticks to Rachmanionff. The latter has an enormous freedom with the instrument that the former can't even imagine.

This presupposes that what they choose to do they do freely. We could say the same thing about the difference between the old Tiger Handheld video games from the 80s and the iWatch of today. It does a lot more things of a lot greater complexity, but that doesn't mean it's making free choices.

The powerful politician marshals language, arguments, and rhetoric in a way that moves the minds and spirits of his listeners towards the goal he has in mind. In that case reason is his slave, not his master.

In this scenario, the politician is the actor, and the listeners are the believers. His listeners are convinced to agree if his reasoning is persuasive, so they are a slave to his reasoning. But why does the politician do what he does? Because he was convinced by other reasoning and life experiences to hold to certain beliefs.

I also think that freedom is a spectrum. "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Just as when you draw nearer the sun you become darker in complexion, as you draw nearer God you become more free. Hell probably is filled with near-deterministic automata. However that mystery of freedom works, some people seem to have more of it than others, not unlike the two piano players.

That's weird. A long time ago we had a discussion about free will when I made a challenge thread about the problem of evil. You told me back then that folks in Heaven don't have free will anymore because God is so good, that it's overwhelming to be in His presence and we can't choose to do evil. And also, that God doesn't have free will. It's fine that your position seems to have changed, I just think it's interesting how much.

I don't follow. In both cases an irrevocable event occurs that we are not able to change, and in neither case do I believe the irrevocability implies determinism.

No, in one case an irrevocable event has already occurred, and in the other case an event hasn't occurred yet.

The only reason you can't choose the red car is because you chose the blue car. Where did the reasoning process about happiness come from? It came from you.

If I didn't use any reasoning, I'd follow my gut instinct to what makes me happy. I use reasoning because it makes me happy. We haven't escaped being a slave to our desires by looking at it one step back.

So now we're in the muck of a free will vs. determinism debate, eh? Like I said earlier, I'm not sure how much progress we will make here since I don't know how to prove or disprove either side. Any ideas? I mean, I do have a knock-down argument against determinism in my back pocket, but if I used it you would have no choice but to believe in freedom.

So we agree that non-acting doesn't provide a case for freedom. What would? To act (rationally) without a reason? But that's a contradiction in terms. If freedom is defined as acting without a reason then I agree freedom doesn't exist.

The problem is that the pursuit of happiness is the only reason. If you can look at two choices (A and B), and fully believe that choosing A will make you the happiest, and then choose B, you could demonstrate that you have a choice in the matter. But you can't, so you don't.

Okay, that makes sense. Is there anything you think people do choose? Are there any personal qualities you would commend?

I can't think of anything that people choose (now). I like some personal qualities more than others, so I like folks with those qualities more than I like other folks who lack them, and I'll commend people for having them because it encourages those qualities.

And I would say that to choose what is pleasurable and to choose what is desirable are two different things.

Agree to disagree.

I do think pleasure is different from happiness. Pleasure and pain are sensual experiences.

Sure, happiness is a state, pleasure is a sensation. I was equivocating "pleasure" with your nondescript "good feeling", not with happiness.

To say that the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] finds pleasure in pain is technically an equivocation on pleasure. One can desire pain and suffering, but that doesn't mean that for such a person pain is pleasure.

Sort of... The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] finds pleasure in pain because pain causes pleasure. So pain and pleasure aren't the same thing, no, but for them pain is pleasurable.

Another example: some people are extremely dutiful and conscientious. They desire to fulfill obligation duties, and this brings them happiness. That doesn't mean driving the speed limit is a pleasurable experience. Ice cream, a warm shower, and sex are pleasurable experiences. I think you're stretching the definition of pleasure.

I don't think I am. The safe driver may not think about the satisfaction they get from driving safely all the time, but they drive safely all the time out of habit. The developed that habit because they associated that behavior with the good feeling of satisfaction.

 

[Leaf473]

You’re right! I should have phrased it differently; perhaps saying I don’t believe in God or anything related to God.

no problem, I think I understand what you're saying.

No. If it did, we wouldn’t be dead.

well, does at least some part of our consciousness continue after rigor mortis sets in?

Yeah; neither of those sound realistic to me.

right, I don't think anyone accepts true randomness when applied to the entire universe all at once.

but I've read that true randomness in tiny particles is well established by the scientific method.

Agreed. Unlike humans, the light bulb is not conscious.

yes, consciousness is probably the key.
but what is consciousness? what causes it?

I'm not sure myself.

True! Chemicals and electrons aren’t conscious

hmm...
if one stops at Newtonian physics, it's pretty hard to avoid a deterministic universe.

but you say that doesn't sound reasonable to you?

Count me in as one of those people.

I think if consciousness arises from matter, then it's pretty hard to avoid consciousness being the product of things that are deterministic and random.

do you believe our brains produce consciousness?
or does it come from somewhere else and is simply received by the brain, much like a radio receives a broadcast?

We are conscious. Conscious meaning to be aware of our surroundings and the ability to act according to this awareness.

do we have the ability to choose our actions?
if so, are our choices the product of determinism and randomness, or something else?

However; I’ve got a feeling what I call conscious, you might call a spirit or a soul.

possibly.
since there is no known physical process that could produce what we call choice, if we assert that it exists then we are asserting the existence of something for which we have no physical evidence.

we would be basing our assertion on an interior sensation.
but if I'm going to do that, I would also say that I have an interior sensation that God exists.

 

[Ken-1122]

well, does at least some part of our consciousness continue after rigor mortis sets in?

IMO consciousness and death is a contradiction in terms

yes, consciousness is probably the key.
but what is consciousness? what causes it?

Conscious is being aware of your surroundings and the ability to act accordingly. I don’t see conscious as something caused, I see it as an ability. Like running; if you can balance in an upright position and move your feet fast, you have to ability to run.

I think if consciousness arises from matter, then it's pretty hard to avoid consciousness being the product of things that are deterministic and random.

do you believe our brains produce consciousness?

No; I believe our brains give us the ability of consciousness

do we have the ability to choose our actions?
if so, are our choices the product of determinism and randomness, or something else?

Our choices are the result of our thoughts. Our thoughts are a function of our brain.

possibly.
since there is no known physical process that could produce what we call choice, if we assert that it exists then we are asserting the existence of something for which we have no physical evidence.

Choice is the result of our thoughts, our thought are a function of our brain, and there is evidence of our physical brain.

 

[Leaf473]

IMO consciousness and death is a contradiction in terms

right, I rephrase the question so as not to use the word death:
does at least some part of our consciousness continue after rigor mortis sets in?

Conscious is being aware of your surroundings and the ability to act accordingly. I don’t see conscious as something caused, I see it as an ability. Like running; if you can balance in an upright position and move your feet fast, you have to ability to run.

well, I'm not sure if we can talk about consciousness long-term without using the word "cause",
but in the case of the ability to run, feet are required to have that ability, as in your example.

what is required to have consciousness?

and more particularly, what is required in order to have the ability to choose?

No; I believe our brains give us the ability of consciousness

Our choices are the result of our thoughts. Our thoughts are a function of our brain.

Choice is the result of our thoughts, our thought are a function of our brain, and there is evidence of our physical brain.

yes, I agree that all of the observable evidence points to our having a brain, and that brain being composed of things like electrons and chemicals.

the evidence also points to electrons and chemicals behaving in a combination of determinism and randomness.

how then can a large collection of those things produce an ability which is neither deterministic nor random?

do you know of an experiment that can be done to show that humans have the ability to choose?

 

[Ken-1122]

right, I rephrase the question so as not to use the word death:
does at least some part of our consciousness continue after rigor mortis sets in?

It is my understanding that rigor mortis only sets in after death; so my answer remains the same

what is required to have consciousness?

and more particularly, what is required in order to have the ability to choose?

Our brains all us to have consciousness and our brains allow us the ability to choose

yes, I agree that all of the observable evidence points to our having a brain, and that brain being composed of things like electrons and chemicals.

the evidence also points to electrons and chemicals behaving in a combination of determinism and randomness.

how then can a large collection of those things produce an ability which is neither deterministic nor random?

I don’t know. I know the brain works, but I don’t know HOW it works.

do you know of an experiment that can be done to show that humans have the ability to choose?

I only know I have the ability to choose, and so I assume everybody else has this ability as well. I cannot think of a way to prove everyone else has this ability, and I can’t think of a way to prove to anyone else that I have this ability to choose either. I don’t know if I can give you the answer you are looking for.

 

[Leaf473]

It is my understanding that rigor mortis only sets in after death; so my answer remains the same

yes, I understand now.

some people who say that consciousness is incompatible with death mean it this way:
even if the body stops working, if the person is still conscious, then they are not dead.

Our brains all us to have consciousness and our brains allow us the ability to choose

how did you arrive at this conclusion?

do you have objective evidence for your conclusion?

I don’t know. I know the brain works, but I don’t know HOW it works.

I only know I have the ability to choose, and so I assume everybody else has this ability as well. I cannot think of a way to prove everyone else has this ability, and I can’t think of a way to prove to anyone else that I have this ability to choose either. I don’t know if I can give you the answer you are looking for.

I have answers that I'm happy with, I was asking you what your thoughts were.

I think being convinced of something for which one has no evidence is called Faith.

I too believe that we have the ability to choose even though there is no physical evidence for it.

do you believe the material world is all that exists?
by material world, I mean matter, energy, and whatever else physicists have been able to observe.

 

[Ken-1122]

yes, I understand now.

some people who say that consciousness is incompatible with death mean it this way:
even if the body stops working, if the person is still conscious, then they are not dead.

Sounds good to me.

how did you arrive at this conclusion?

do you have objective evidence for your conclusion?

No objective evidence, for me it’s a logical conclusion deriving from the best information I have at the moment.

do you believe the material world is all that exists?
by material world, I mean matter, energy, and whatever else physicists have been able to observe.

Yes. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Speedwell]

do you believe the material world is all that exists?
by material world, I mean matter, energy, and whatever else physicists have been able to observe.

The term "exists" as we conceive of it, may only apply to the material world in any case.

 

[Ken-1122]

The term "exists" as we conceive of it, may only apply to the material world in any case.

Excellent point!