Atheists/Agnostics: How Much Sense Does God Make?

[Ana the Ist]

I've lost my way, Ana. Where do you think I got the idea that God does stuff without reasons?

Because it seems like you want to describe him as doing things without choosing to. The mere fact that we describe god as creating a universe implies that he existed without a universe at some point...so clearly he can exist without a universe...so he isn't compelled by any mechanism intrinsic to his being to create a universe...ergo, he must've chose to create it. This implies a motive, a desire, a want, etc.

If "want" means desire, then we're back at square one: you're implying that they can only escape their depression if they want to, but I'm saying that it's precisely their wants (or lack of wants) that keep them trapped in their depression, and that they're required to transcend their wants by choosing despite them.

But they aren't required, are they? They can stay depressed (and often do) can't they? There is nothing compelling them out of depression...is there? They make a choice, don't they?

So why make that choice?

 

[Received]

Because it seems like you want to describe him as doing things without choosing to. The mere fact that we describe god as creating a universe implies that he existed without a universe at some point...so clearly he can exist without a universe...so he isn't compelled by any mechanism intrinsic to his being to create a universe...ergo, he must've chose to create it. This implies a motive, a desire, a want, etc.





But they aren't required, are they? They can stay depressed (and often do) can't they? There is nothing compelling them out of depression...is there? They make a choice, don't they?

So why make that choice?

Okay, so it seems like we've reached an impasse. You believe that wants and desires are necessary for choice, and I believe that wants and desires can be motivators for choice, but that choice can transcend wants and desires. You seem to be a determinist who uses wants and desires as mediators for determining human action, and I'm a libertarian who sees wants and desires as things that push and pull but don't ultimately dictate human action.

So with our depression example, we can say they make a choice for a good reason, but the reason itself might not (in my clinical experience rarely does) motivate them (cause them to have certain desires which dictate their actions) to choose. The weird part about freedom in a libertarian sense is that you ultimately can't explain human freedom in particular instances by appealing to desires or motivations or even reasons; the person just chooses, and responding that this choice must have a reason or desire or motivation behind it is begging the question.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, I agree. A desire can motivate, but to have a motive isn't limited to desire.

Can you suggest a motive that isn't the result of a desire?

 

[Received]

Can you suggest a motive that isn't the result of a desire?

If we understand motive as being a reason for doing something, then we just have to find a reason.

Motivation, though, usually does involve a desire, or something psychologically that pushes a person in a certain direction. So there's a few different ways we can understand "motive".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Good one!
Then again, I experience often that something about me is impacting my relationships which definitely doesn´t correspond with or is even reconcilable with my idea of myself.

Good point... perhaps another level of indirection is called for - our idea of ourselves thinks that it's what actually has relationships with our ideas of others

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If we understand motive as being a reason for doing something, then we just have to find a reason.

Motivation, though, usually does involve a desire, or something psychologically that pushes a person in a certain direction. So there's a few different ways we can understand "motive".

But can you suggest a motive that isn't the result of a desire ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Okay, so it seems like we've reached an impasse. You believe that wants and desires are necessary for choice, and I believe that wants and desires can be motivators for choice, but that choice can transcend wants and desires. You seem to be a determinist who uses wants and desires as mediators for determining human action, and I'm a libertarian who sees wants and desires as things that push and pull but don't ultimately dictate human action.

Oh no...don't put words in my mouth now. I may want ice cream but that desire can conflict with a desire to stay healthy/fit and I can rationalize the benefits and cons of the ice cream. I believe that if we simply continue asking "why did you choose x?" we eventually will return to a want or desire of some kind....but it's not necessarily the sole factor in behavior.

So with our depression example, we can say they make a choice for a good reason, but the reason itself might not (in my clinical experience rarely does) motivate them (cause them to have certain desires which dictate their actions) to choose.

This sentence seems inherently contradictory. If our "good reason" didn't motivate them to choose...what did? If they can just choose to leave depression without any want or desire to begin with...what in the world do they even need your clinic for? Can't they just do that at home?

The weird part about freedom in a libertarian sense is that you ultimately can't explain human freedom in particular instances by appealing to desires or motivations or even reasons; the person just chooses, and responding that this choice must have a reason or desire or motivation behind it is begging the question.

Yet, it doesn't seem as if you're able to come up with an example of this "just choosing". So I hope you'll forgive me for doubting that such choices exist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Received, I'm not going to claim to have your experience with the depressed...but I've known several clinically depressed people. Every one of them that's beaten it, at some point or another, would've told me that they didn't "want" to be depressed anymore. That was always the motivation for seeking treatment, medication, or whatever they used to break out of it.

It's that experience...that completely singular experience...that makes it so hard to believe that you've got any (let alone multiple) patients who can't give you a want/desire as their reason for trying to break out of their depression.

 

[Received]

Oh no...don't put words in my mouth now. I may want ice cream but that desire can conflict with a desire to stay healthy/fit and I can rationalize the benefits and cons of the ice cream. I believe that if we simply continue asking "why did you choose x?" we eventually will return to a want or desire of some kind....but it's not necessarily the sole factor in behavior.

So are you saying that reasoning itself is a type of desire, because if reason is different than desire, then by reasoning we're detaching ourselves from desire momentarily, which means desire isn't necessary in all situations to determine outcome.

This sentence seems inherently contradictory. If our "good reason" didn't motivate them to choose...what did? If they can just choose to leave depression without any want or desire to begin with...what in the world do they even need your clinic for? Can't they just do that at home?

Yet, it doesn't seem as if you're able to come up with an example of this "just choosing". So I hope you'll forgive me for doubting that such choices exist.

Again, you assume that motivation inextricably entails desire and that this desire is what pushes a person to do something, whereas I'm saying that motivation might or might not entail desire and regardless desire or motivation aren't what pushes a person to do anything. That's where choice comes in. You can't really exemplify "just choosing", as it's inherent to all choices according to a libertarian perspective. When I choose I do so independent of any influences. Desires may push and reasons may pull, but choice is still more than these.

 

[Received]

Received, I'm not going to claim to have your experience with the depressed...but I've known several clinically depressed people. Every one of them that's beaten it, at some point or another, would've told me that they didn't "want" to be depressed anymore. That was always the motivation for seeking treatment, medication, or whatever they used to break out of it.

It's that experience...that completely singular experience...that makes it so hard to believe that you've got any (let alone multiple) patients who can't give you a want/desire as their reason for trying to break out of their depression.

They definitely may want to not have their depression, just as I might want to be a millionaire. The question is how they go about getting out of their depression.

 

[Received]

But can you suggest a motive that isn't the result of a desire ?

Any reason, potentially. My motive for getting up in the morning is based in reasons (things I have to do that day); these reasons might create desires, but many times these desires aren't sufficient to get me out of bed (especially if I didn't get enough sleep, etc.). OTOH, desire can filter out which reasons are most apparent to us; if I want to kill someone, it's not very apparent that his being alive is a good thing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So are you saying that reasoning itself is a type of desire, because if reason is different than desire, then by reasoning we're detaching ourselves from desire momentarily, which means desire isn't necessary in all situations to determine outcome.

It's not the outcome we're concerned with...its the beginning, the source of a behavior, that we're trying to examine.

Again, you assume that motivation inextricably entails desire and that this desire is what pushes a person to do something, whereas I'm saying that motivation might or might not entail desire and regardless desire or motivation aren't what pushes a person to do anything.

That's fine...but at least give me an example of a choice that exists without motivation. I literally can't think of anything (other than perhaps my example of breathing and such similar examples).

That's where choice comes in. You can't really exemplify "just choosing", as it's inherent to all choices according to a libertarian perspective. When I choose I do so independent of any influences. Desires may push and reasons may pull, but choice is still more than these.

Again, that's fine...but give me an example of something that you definitely choose to do independent of any desires or wants.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They definitely may want to not have their depression, just as I might want to be a millionaire. The question is how they go about getting out of their depression.

Lol actually no...that's not the question in this context. We're talking about "why" god created the universe, not how he went about doing it.

I think you're getting off track. The point was originally that such a being would necessarily be devoid of wants and desires, which isn't a point you contended with me on.

So why create the universe?

I can only imagine how distressing this concept of god would be to anyone who believes that god is personal...that he has reasons for doing what he does.

 

[Received]

It's not the outcome we're concerned with...its the beginning, the source of a behavior, that we're trying to examine.

Say again?

And do you think that reasoning is different than desire or is another example of desire?

That's fine...but at least give me an example of a choice that exists without motivation. I literally can't think of anything (other than perhaps my example of breathing and such similar examples).

I think all choices necessarily exist in the context of motivation, given that there will always be desires that have some type of influence. What I'm saying, though, is that libertarianism holds the idea that at some point you choose without influences (motivations, desires, reasons), and this choice has no explanation or reasons, and by doing so you're begging the question, because explaining choices as completely based in reasons or desires reflects determinism.

Again, that's fine...but give me an example of something that you definitely choose to do independent of any desires or wants.

See above. All choices by definition, according to libertarianism, mean that at some point choice transcends desires or wants.

 

[Received]

Lol actually no...that's not the question in this context. We're talking about "why" god created the universe, not how he went about doing it.

I think you're getting off track. The point was originally that such a being would necessarily be devoid of wants and desires, which isn't a point you contended with me on.

So why create the universe?

I can only imagine how distressing this concept of god would be to anyone who believes that god is personal...that he has reasons for doing what he does.

He created the universe because he had a reason for creating it. Don't expect me to know what that reason is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Any reason, potentially. My motive for getting up in the morning is based in reasons (things I have to do that day)

That's just it though....you don't have to get out of bed.

You could just potentially stay in bed until death inevitably occurs. Long before that happens though, your desire to remain comfortable would at least get you up to relieve your bladder. Your desire to eat (a very biological desire) will get you up to make breakfast. You may not be fully aware of these desires and wants while you perform any action...but it's not hard to find your way back to them as causes retroactively.

 

[Ana the Ist]

He created the universe because he had a reason for creating it. Don't expect me to know what that reason is.

Well that's just it...we're only talking about one action aren't we? It's not exactly going to be difficult to ascribe a possible reason for why he did it. Let's see if we can come up with just one that isn't rooted in desire/want, shall we?

The only one that I can come up with that isn't rooted in desire or want is...because he can. That's about as impersonal and non-interventionist as it gets. It's completely apathetic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Say again?

And do you think that reasoning is different than desire or is another example of desire?



I think all choices necessarily exist in the context of motivation, given that there will always be desires that have some type of influence. What I'm saying, though, is that libertarianism holds the idea that at some point you choose without influences (motivations, desires, reasons), and this choice has no explanation or reasons, and by doing so you're begging the question, because explaining choices as completely based in reasons or desires reflects determinism.



See above. All choices by definition, according to libertarianism, mean that at some point choice transcends desires or wants.

From what I've read of libertarian free will...choices aren't entirely free of desires or influences, they merely aren't compelled by them. I'm not arguing that they are. I'm simply saying that if we were to trace any line of reasoning for a free will choice...we will ultimately come to a desire or want at it's core.

That's because desires and wants don't need a rational basis for existing. For example, you don't need a rational basis to want to be free of pain...you simply want it because pain feels bad. You don't need a rational basis for feeling good...that's because feeling good feels good.

Does that explain my position a little better?

 

[Ana the Ist]

We could do this for literally any behavior...

For example, let's say you went to work today. Why did you go to work? Maybe your reason is that you simply enjoy your work...and the regression ends there. We could possibly examine why you like your work, but we don't need to in order to find the root of why you went to work.

Let's say that you don't like your work...why did you go? Perhaps it's because you need money. Why do you need money? Because it's necessary for you to buy the things that you need to survive. Why do you want to survive? It's one of the most basic wants and desires shared by nearly every kind of living thing (which also makes it one of the hardest desires to fight). The need/want to survive.

Literally any action that you do is at its most basic level motivated by a want or desire.

 

[Received]

From what I've read of libertarian free will...choices aren't entirely free of desires or influences, they merely aren't compelled by them. I'm not arguing that they are. I'm simply saying that if we were to trace any line of reasoning for a free will choice...we will ultimately come to a desire or want at it's core.

That's because desires and wants don't need a rational basis for existing. For example, you don't need a rational basis to want to be free of pain...you simply want it because pain feels bad. You don't need a rational basis for feeling good...that's because feeling good feels good.

Does that explain my position a little better?

Yes. Do you think it's possible for a person to work contrary to his desires or wants?